Browse > Article

Micro-tensile Bond Strength of Composite Resin Bonded to Er:YAG Laser-prepared Dentin  

Min, Suk-Jin (Department of Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Ahn, Yong-Woo (Department of Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Ko, Myung-Yun (Department of Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Park, June-Sang (Department of Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain / v.31, no.3, 2006 , pp. 211-221 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose The aims of this study were to evaluate micro-tensile bond strength of composite resin bonded to dentin following high-speed rotary handpiece preparation or Er:YAG laser preparation with two different adhesive systems and to assess the influence of different Er:YAG laser energies on the micro-tensile bond strength. Materials and Methods In this study, 40 third morlars were used. Flat dentin specimans were obtained and randomly assigned to eight groups. Dentin surfaces were prepared with one of four cutting types: carbide bur, Er:YAG laser (2 W, 3 W and 4 W) and conditioned with two bonding systems, Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus (SM), Clearfil SE bond (SE) and composite resin-build ups were created. After storage for 24 hours, each specimen was serially sectioned perpendicular to the bonded surface to produce more than thirty slabs in each group. Micro-tensile bond strength test was performed at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. Micro-tensile bond strengths (${\mu}TBS$) were expressed as means$\pm$SD. Data were submitted to statistical analysis using two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, Student-Newman-Keuls' multiple comparison test and t-test. Results and Conclusion 1. Regardless of bonding systems, the ${\mu}TBS$ according to cutting types were from highest to lowest : 3 W, 2 W, Bur, and 4 W. In addition, there was no significant difference between Bur and 4 W (p<0.001). 2. Regardless of cutting types, SM showed significantly higher ${\mu}TBS$ than SE (p<0.001). 3. Bonding to dentin conditioned with SM resulted in higher ${\mu}TBS$ for 3 W compared to Bur, 2 W, and 4 W. There was no significant difference between 2 W and Bur (p<0.001). 4. Bonding to dentin conditioned with SE resulted in higher ${\mu}TBS$ for 3 W compared to 2 W, 4 W, and Bur. Bur exhibited significant lower ${\mu}TBS$ than all other cutting types. There were no significant differences between 3 W, 2 W and between 4 W and Bur (p<0.001). 5. The ${\mu}TBS$ of laser cutting groups were shown in order from highest to lowest: 3 W, 2 W and 4 W in two bonding systems. There was no significant difference between 2 W and 3 W in SE (p<0.001). : The ${\mu}TBS$ of composite resin bonded dentin was significantly affected by interaction between the cutting type and bonding system. In the range of 2 W-3 W, cavity preparation of the Er:YAG laser seems to supply good adhesion of composite resin restoration no less than bur preparation. In particular, if you want to use the self-etching system, including Clearfil SE bond for the purpose of a simplification of the bonding procedures and prevention of adverse effects by excessive etching, an Er:YAG laser may offer better adhesion than a bur.
Keywords
Laser; Composite Resin; Bond Strength;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Kameyam A, Kawada T, Amagai M, Takizwa Y, Oda Y. Effect of HEMA on bonding of Er:YAG laserirradiated bovine dentine and 4-META/MMA-TBB resin. J oral Rehabilitat 2003;29:749-755
2 Armengol V, Jean A, Hamel H. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of diseased and healthy dental hard tissues after Er:YAG laser irradiation:in vitro study. J. Endod 2000;26(2):95-99   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Elisangela MM, Rosimeyri LW, Jejus DP. Bond strength to dentin of primary teeth irradiated with varying Er:YAG laser energies and SEM examination of the surface morphology. Lasers Surg Med 2004;34:254-259   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Luciano B, Rolf D, Denise MZ. Changes in chemical composition and collagen structure of dentine tissue after erbium laser irradiation. Spectrochimica Acta Part A 2005;61:2634-2639   DOI
5 Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 1999;27:523-530   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Mariane G, Silmara A, Maria CB, Jejus DP, Regina GP. Influence of pulse frequency Er:YAG laser on tensile bond strength of a composite to dentin. Am J Dent 2005;18:165-167
7 Kataumi M, Nakajima M, Yamada T, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength and SEM evaluation of Er:YAG laser irradiated dentin using dentin adhesive. Dent Mater J 1998;17:125-138   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Nakajima M, Sano H. Bond strengths of single-bottle dentin adhesives to caries-affected dentin. Operative Dentistry 2000;25:2-10
9 Sean L, Angelo A, Caputo PD, Lewis RL. Topographical characteristics and shear bond strength of tooth surfaces cut with a laser-powered hydrokinetic system. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:451-455   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Cynthia PT, Patricia NR, John MP. Resin bond strength and micromorphology of human teeth prepared with an Er:YAG laser. Am J Dent 2004;17:331-336
11 Visuri SR, Gilbert DD, Wright HA, Walsh JT. Shear strength of composite bonded to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin. J Dent Res 1996;75(1):599-605   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Bouillague S, Gysi P, Wataha BC et al. Bond strength of composite to dentin using conventional, one step, and self-etching adhesive systems. J Dent 2002; 29:55-61   DOI   ScienceOn
13 김근아, 안용우, 고명연, 박준상. : Er:YAG laser를 이용한 법랑질과 상아질의 절삭율 연구. 대한구강내과학회지, 2005;30:131-140
14 Kameyama A, Oda Y, Hirai Y, Kawada E, Takizama M. Resin bonding to Er:YAG laser- irradiated dentin: combined effects of pre-treatments with citric acid and glutaraldehyde. Eur J Oral Sci 2001;109:354-360   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Arturo MI, Luis SD, Francisco GR. Differences in bonding to acid-etched or Er:YAG-laser-treated enamel and dentin surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:280-288   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Sakakibala Y, Ishimaru K, Takamizu M. A study on bond strenght to dentin irradiated Er:YAG laser. Jpn J Conservative Dent 1998;41:207-219
17 Meerbeek BV, Munck J, Mattar D. Microtensile bond strengths of an etch & rinse and self-etch adhesive to enamel and dentin as a function of surface treatment. Operative Dentistry 2003;28-5:647-660
18 Aline ED, Silmara AM, Rengina GP, Maria CB, Jesus DP. Influence of Er:YAG laser on tensile bond strength of a self-etching system and a flowable resin in different dentin depths. J Dent 2004;32: 269-275   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Juliana DM, Sheila GS, Patricia MF et al. Tensile bond strength of a flowable composite resin to Er:YAG-laser-treated dentin. Lasers Surg Med 2005;36: 351-355   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Yamada Y et al. Ablation depths and morphological changes in human enamel and dentin after Er:YAG laser irradiation with or without water mist. J Clin Laser Med Surg 1999;17:105-109
21 Juliano FS, Daniela TC, Maria CB et al. Comparative study of the dentin/adhesive systems interface after treatment with Er:YAG laser and acid etching using scanning electron microscope. Lasers Surg Med 2004;34:385-390   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Marie FB, Daniel H, Michele MB, Samir N, Jean PR. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of resin-dentin interface after Er:YAG laser preparation. Lasers Surg Med 2004;35:51-57   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Ceballos L, Toledano M, Osorio R, Tay FR, Marshall GW. Bonding to Er:YAG laser treated dentin. J Dent Res 2002;81(2):119-122   DOI   ScienceOn
24 William JD, John TB, Anneke CB. Shear bond strength and SEM evaluation of composite bonded to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin and enamel. Dental Materials 2005;21:616-624   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Evans DJ, Matthews NB, Pitts CL, Longbottom C, Nugent ZJ. A clinical evaluation of an Erbium:YAG laser for dental cavity preparation. British Dental J 2000;188:677-679   DOI   ScienceOn