RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare laser with conventional techniques in class V cavity preparation in gamma-irradiated teeth. METHODS: Forty extracted human teeth with no carious lesions were used for this study and were divided into two main groups: Group I (n = 20) was not subjected to gamma radiation (control) and Group II (n=20) was subjected to gamma radiation of 60 Gray. Standard class V preparation was performed in buccal and lingual sides of each tooth in both groups. Buccal surfaces were prepared by the Er,Cr:YSGG laser (Waterlase iPlus) 2780 nm, using the gold handpiece with MZ10 Tip in non-contact and the "H" mode, following parameters of cavity preparation - power 6 W, frequency 50 Hz, 90% water and 70% air, then shifting to surface treatment laser parameters - power 4.5 W, frequency 50 Hz, 80% water and 50% air. Lingual surfaces were prepared by the conventional high-speed turbine using round diamond bur. Teeth were then sectioned mesio-distally, resulting in 80 specimens: 40 of which were buccal laser-treated (20 control and 20 gamma-irradiated specimens) and 40 were lingual conventional high-speed bur specimens (20 control and 20 gamma-irradiated specimens). RESULTS: Microleakage analysis revealed higher scores in both gamma groups compared with control groups. Chi-square test revealed no significant difference between both control groups and gamma groups (p=1, 0.819, respectively). A significant difference was revealed between all 4 groups (p=0.00018). CONCLUSION: Both laser and conventional high-speed turbine bur show good bond strength in control (non-gamma) group, while microleakage is evident in gamma group, indicating that gamma radiation had a dramatic negative effect on the bond strength in both laser and bur-treated teeth.
Assuntos
Cárie Dentária/radioterapia , Preparo da Cavidade Dentária/métodos , Infiltração Dentária/radioterapia , Raios gama , HumanosRESUMO
Abstract Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare laser with conventional techniques in class V cavity preparation in gamma-irradiated teeth. Methods: Forty extracted human teeth with no carious lesions were used for this study and were divided into two main groups: Group I (n = 20) was not subjected to gamma radiation (control) and Group II (n=20) was subjected to gamma radiation of 60 Gray. Standard class V preparation was performed in buccal and lingual sides of each tooth in both groups. Buccal surfaces were prepared by the Er,Cr:YSGG laser (Waterlase iPlus) 2780 nm, using the gold handpiece with MZ10 Tip in non-contact and the "H" mode, following parameters of cavity preparation - power 6 W, frequency 50 Hz, 90% water and 70% air, then shifting to surface treatment laser parameters - power 4.5 W, frequency 50 Hz, 80% water and 50% air. Lingual surfaces were prepared by the conventional high-speed turbine using round diamond bur. Teeth were then sectioned mesio-distally, resulting in 80 specimens: 40 of which were buccal laser-treated (20 control and 20 gamma-irradiated specimens) and 40 were lingual conventional high-speed bur specimens (20 control and 20 gamma-irradiated specimens). Results: Microleakage analysis revealed higher scores in both gamma groups compared with control groups. Chi-square test revealed no significant difference between both control groups and gamma groups (p=1, 0.819, respectively). A significant difference was revealed between all 4 groups (p=0.00018). Conclusion: Both laser and conventional high-speed turbine bur show good bond strength in control (non-gamma) group, while microleakage is evident in gamma group, indicating that gamma radiation had a dramatic negative effect on the bond strength in both laser and bur-treated teeth.
Assuntos
Humanos , Cárie Dentária/radioterapia , Preparo da Cavidade Dentária/métodos , Infiltração Dentária/radioterapia , Raios gamaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this split-mouth, double blinded, short-term, controlled clinical trial was to study the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) for treatment of chronic periodontitis. BACKGROUND DATA: LLLT is reported to improve the outcome of traditional SRP, but the evidence is still weak. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with a probing pocket depth (PPD) of 4-6 mm involving at least three teeth in each quadrant were recruited for the study. Afterwards, SRP quadrants were randomly assigned for 10 sessions of LLLT. RESULTS: Results showed that when compared to sites treated with SRP alone, those treated with SRP+LLLT (10 sessions, 830 nm, 100 mW, 3 J per point, 3 J/cm(2)) exhibited greater reductions in PPD at 5 weeks and 3 months but not at 6 months. Further, SRP+LLLT-treated sites had a statistically significant increase in mean radiographic bone density when comparing 6- and 12-month data and overall from baseline to 12 months. There was a trend to reduce interleukin (IL)-1ß but the difference between control and laser sites was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: SRP combined with LLLT improved radiographic bone density and short-term PPD reduction in patients with chronic periodontitis, but did not significantly affect either the gingival crevicular fluid of IL-1ß or the gingival or plaque index.