Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Exploring the use of pulsed erbium lasers to retrieve a zirconia crown from a zirconia implant abutment.
Elkharashi, Ahmed; Grzech-Lesniak, Kinga; Deeb, Janina Golob; Abdulmajeed, Aous A; Bencharit, Sompop.
Afiliación
  • Elkharashi A; Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.
  • Grzech-Lesniak K; Department of Oral Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
  • Deeb JG; Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.
  • Abdulmajeed AA; Department of General Practice, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.
  • Bencharit S; Department of General Practice, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.
PLoS One ; 15(6): e0233536, 2020.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32479553
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Removal of cement-retained implant fixed restorations when needed, can be challenging. Conventional methods of crown removal are time consuming and costly for patients and practitioners. This research explored the use of two different types of pulsed erbium lasers as a non-invasive tool to retrieve cemented zirconia crowns from zirconia implant abutments. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Twenty identical zirconia crowns were cemented onto 20 identical zirconia prefabricated abutments using self-adhesive resin cement. The specimens were divided into two groups for laser assisted crown removal; G1 for erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser (ErYAG), and G2 for erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium and garnet (Er,CrYSGG). For the G1, after the first crown removal, the specimens were re-cemented and removed again using the ErYAG laser. Times needed to remove the crowns were recorded and analyzed using ANOVA (α = 0.05). The surfaces of the crown and the abutment were further examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analyses.

RESULTS:

The average times of zirconia crown removal from zirconia abutments were 5 min 20 sec and 5 min 15 sec for the ErYAG laser of first and second experiments (G1), and 5 min 55 sec for the Er,CrYSGG laser experiment (G2). No statistical differences were observed among the groups. SEM and EDS examinations of the materials showed no visual surface damaging or material alteration from the two pulsed erbium lasers.

CONCLUSIONS:

Both types of pulsed erbium lasers can be viable alternatives for retrieving a zirconia crown from a zirconia implant abutment. Despite operating at different wavelengths, the ErYAG and Er,CrYSGG lasers, perform similarly in removing a zirconia crown from a zirconia implant abutment with similar parameters. There are no visual and elemental composition damages as a result of irradiation with pulsed erbium lasers.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Recubrimiento Dental Adhesivo / Prótesis Dental / Láseres de Estado Sólido Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Recubrimiento Dental Adhesivo / Prótesis Dental / Láseres de Estado Sólido Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos