PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2018; 12(03): 380-385
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_410_17
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Effect of the Er: YAG laser on the shear bond strength of conventional glass ionomer and BiodentineTM to dentine

Abtesam Aljdaimi
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
2   Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Asmarya University, Zliten, Libya
,
Hugh Devlin
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
,
Mark Dickinson
3   Department of Photon Physics, Photon Science Institute, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, UK
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
16. September 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine if Er: YAG laser etching improves the shear bond strength (SBS) of Biodentin™ and GC Fuji IX® to dentine. Materials and Methods: Forty human dentine specimens were standardized and embedded in stone. The specimens were randomized into four groups (n = 10). Twenty samples were treated with the Er: YAG laser radiation and 10 of these restored with GC Fuji IX® and 10 with Biodentine™. The remaining 20 specimens acted as controls (no laser treatment); 10 were restored with GC Fuji IX® and 10 with Biodentin™. All samples were then stored in an incubator at 37.5°C and 100% humidity for 7 days. The SBS was determined using a Zwick universal testing machine. A two-way analysis of variance test was used to evaluate the statistical difference in SBS between the groups. An independent sample t-test was used to determine the statistical significance of differences between control and lased groups within the same material. Results: A highly statistically significant difference in SBS was found with the laser treatment (P = 0.0001) and material (i.e., Biodentin™ or Fuji IX® (P = 0.0001). The GC Fuji IX® group recorded the highest mean SBS required to dislodge the material from the laser-treated dentine surface (1.77 ± 0.22 Mega-Pascal [MPa]). The mean SBS of Biodentin™ to dentine following the laser radiation (1.12 ± 0.16 MPa) was significantly greater compared to the nonlased dentine (0.53 ± 0.09). Pearson Chi-square test indicated a nonsignificant relation between shear strength and mode of failure (P = 0.467). Conclusion: Laser etching of the dentine surfaces yielded a significant increase in the bond strength for both GC Fuji IX® and Biodentin™. The SBS of Biodentin™ to dentine is greater than with conventional glass ionomer (Fuji IX®).

Key words:

Biodentin™ - dentin - Er: YAG laser - shear bond strength
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Shahabi S, Chiniforoush N, Fekrazad R, Fatemi SM. Comparison of tensile bond strength of composite to dentin in conventional or laser-prepared Cavities (Er; Cr: YSGG). J Oral Laser Appl 2010; 10: 107
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Yamada Y, Kimura Y, Nakamura G, Matsumoto K. 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: 105-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Ajlal S. Applications of light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (Lasers) for restorative dentistry. Med Princ Pract 2016; 25: 201-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gjorgievska ES, Nicholson JW, Apostolska SM, Coleman NJ, Booth SE, Slipper IJ. et al. Interfacial properties of three different bioactive dentine substitutes. Microsc Microanal 2013; 19: 1450-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rekha CV, Balagopal Varma J. Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and microleakage of conventional glass ionomer cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement and compomer: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2012; 3: 282-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Raju VG, Venumbaka NR, Mungara J, Vijayakumar P, Rajendran S, Elangovan A. et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and microleakage of tricalcium silicate-based restorative material and radioopaque posterior glass ionomer restorative cement in primary and permanent teeth: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014; 32: 304-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cooper LF, Myers ML, Nelson DG, Mowery AS. Shear strength of composite bonded to laser-pretreated dentin. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 60: 45-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Markovic D, Petrovic B, Peric T, Miletic I, Andjelkovic S. The impact of fissure depth and enamel conditioning protocols on glass-ionomer and resin-based fissure sealant penetration. J Adhes Dent 2011; 13: 171-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Martínez-Insua A, Da Silva Dominguez L, Rivera FG, Santana-Penín UA. Differences in bonding to acid-etched or Er: YAG-laser-treated enamel and dentin surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84: 280-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ceballo L, Toledano M, Osorio R, Tay FR, Marshall GW. Bonding to Er-YAG-laser-treated dentin. J Dent Res 2002; 81: 119-22
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Souza-Gabriel AE, Chinelatti MA, Borsatto MC, Pécora JD, Palma-Dibb RG, Corona SA. et al SEM analysis of enamel surface treated by Er: YAG laser: Influence of irradiation distance. Microsc Res Tech 2008; 71: 536-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Koubi G, Colon P, Franquin JC, Hartmann A, Richard G, Faure MO, et al. Clinical evaluation of the performance and safety of a new dentine substitute, biodentine, in the restoration of posterior teeth – A prospective study. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 243-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hayes M, da Mata C, Tada S, Cole M, McKenna G, Burke FM. et al Evaluation of biodentine in the restoration of root caries: A randomized controlled trial. JDR Clini Transl Res 2016; 1: 51-8
    Google Scholar
  • 14 El-Ma'aita AM, Qualtrough AJ, Watts DC. The effect of smear layer on the push-out bond strength of root canal calcium silicate cements. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 797-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Atmeh AR, Chong EZ, Richard G, Festy F, Watson TF. Dentin-cement interfacial interaction: Calcium silicates and polyalkenoates. J Dent Res 2012; 91: 454-9
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Al-Batayneh OB, Seow WK, Walsh LJ. Assessment of Er: YAG laser for cavity preparation in primary and permanent teeth: A scanning electron microscopy and thermographic study. Pediatr Dent 2014; 36: 90-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hashem DF. Calcium Silicate Cements used as a Therapeutic Dentine Replacement:In vitro and in vivo Studies. King's College London 2015; 00: 00-00
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Türkmen C, Sazak-Oveçoǧlu H, Günday M, Güngör G, Durkan M, Oksüz M. et al Shear bond strength of composite bonded with three adhesives to Er, Cr: YSGG laser-prepared enamel. Quintessence Int 2010; 41: e119-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kobayashi CA, Fujishima A, Miyazaki T, Kimura Y, Matsumoto K, Osada T, et al. Effect of Nd: YAG laser irradiation on shear bond strength of glass-lonomer luting cement to dentin surface. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 493-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Wilson AD, McLean JW. Glass-Ionomer Cement. Chicago: Quintessence Pub Co; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 21 de Souza-Gabriel AE, do Amaral FL, Pécora JD, Palma-Dibb RG, Corona SA. Shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cements to Er: YAG laser-treated tooth structure. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 212-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jafari A, Shahabi S, Chiniforush N, Shariat A. Comparison of the shear bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer to enamel in bur-prepared or lased teeth (Er: YAG). J Dent (Tehran) 2013; 10: 119-23
    Google Scholar
  • 23 El Wakeel AM, Elkassas DW, Yousry MM. Bonding of contemporary glass ionomer cements to different tooth substrates; microshear bond strength and scanning electron microscope study. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 176-82
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Yesilyurt C, Bulucu B, Sezen O, Bulut G, Celik D. Bond strengths of two conventional glass-ionomer cements to irradiated and non-irradiated dentin. Dent Mater J 2008; 27: 695-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Shebl EA, Etman WM, Genaid TM, Shalaby ME. Durability of bond strength of glass-ionomers to enamel. Tanta Dent J 2015; 12: 16-27
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Choudhari S. Clinical evaluation of efficacy of three restorative materials in primary teeth-Six month follow up study. Int J Clin Dent Sci 2011; 1: 45-52
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Kaup M, Dammann CH, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Shear bond strength of biodentine, proRoot MTA, glass ionomer cement and composite resin on human dentine ex vivo. Head Face Med 2015; 11: 14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Wang L, Sakai VT, Kawai ES, Buzalaf MA, Atta MT. Effect of adhesive systems associated with resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33: 110-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Friedl KH, Powers JM, Hiller KA. Influence of different factors on bond strength of hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent 1995; 20: 74-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Carvalho TS, van Amerongen WE, de Gee A, Bönecker M, Sampaio FC. Shear bond strengths of three glass ionomer cements to enamel and dentine. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011; 16: e406-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Nujella BP, Choudary MT, Reddy SP, Kumar MK, Gopal T. Comparison of shear bond strength of aesthetic restorative materials. Contemp Clin Dent 2012; 3: 22-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Armstrong SR, Boyer DB, Keller JC. Microtensile bond strength testing and failure analysis of two dentin adhesives. Dent Mater 1998; 14: 44-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Yip HK, Tay FR, Ngo HC, Smales RJ, Pashley DH. Bonding of contemporary glass ionomer cements to dentin. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 456-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Sudsangiam S, van Noort R. Do dentin bond strength tests serve a useful purpose?. J Adhes Dent 1999; 1: 57-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ozok AR, Wu MK, Ten Cate JM, Wesselink PR. Effect of dentinal fluid composition on dentin demineralization in vitro . J Dent Res 2004; 83: 849-53
    Google Scholar