Comparison of three adhesive systems in class II composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth : influence of Er:YAG laser conditioning and gingival margin levels on microleakage
NAGIOS: RODERIC FUNCIONANDO

Comparison of three adhesive systems in class II composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth : influence of Er:YAG laser conditioning and gingival margin levels on microleakage

DSpace Repository

Comparison of three adhesive systems in class II composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth : influence of Er:YAG laser conditioning and gingival margin levels on microleakage

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Onay, Emel-Olga es
dc.contributor.author Yamanel, Kivanc es
dc.contributor.author Korkmaz-Ceyhan, Yonca es
dc.contributor.author Gulsahi, Kamran es
dc.date.accessioned 2018-11-28T12:33:36Z
dc.date.available 2018-11-28T12:33:36Z
dc.date.issued 2018 es
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10550/68105
dc.description.abstract Dental surface conditioning by Er:YAG laser is currently being investigated, as not all of the mechanisms and effects of this technique have been clearly studied. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess the cervical microleakage of Class II resin composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth following either the respective conventional conditioning or additional Er:YAG laser conditioning, in association with varied adhesives. Standardized mesial-occlusal-distal cavities (two gingival walls positioned in dentin and enamel, respectively) were created in 60 extracted human premolar teeth. Following the completion of the endodontic therapy, the teeth were grouped into six categories based on conditioning modality and adhesive strategy as follows: group 1-37% phosphoric acid/Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB2); group 2-Er:YAG laser/37% phosphoric acid/ASB2; group 3-Clearfil SE Bond (CSE); group 4-Er:YAG laser/CSE; group 5-Adper Easy One (AEO); and group 6-Er:YAG laser/AEO. Specimens were submitted to thermocycling and dye penetration, followed by longitudinal sectioning. The dye penetration was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. One specimen from each group was assessed under a scanning electron microscope for adhesive interface analysis. No significant differences were found between the conditioning modalities, nor between the adhesive systems at both margins. Groups 1 and 2 showed a lower degree of microleakage in the enamel vs. dentin (p = 0.002). Group 2 showed a significantly lower incidence of microleakage in enamel vs. dentin (p = 0.005). CSE and AEO were comparable with that of ASB2 regarding sealing ability. Additional Er:YAG laser conditioning may be beneficial before ASB2 application in enamel. es
dc.source Onay, Emel-Olga ; Yamanel, Kivanc ; Korkmaz-Ceyhan, Yonca ; Gulsahi, Kamran. Comparison of three adhesive systems in class II composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth : influence of Er:YAG laser conditioning and gingival margin levels on microleakage. En: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 10 8 2018: 781-788 es
dc.title Comparison of three adhesive systems in class II composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth : influence of Er:YAG laser conditioning and gingival margin levels on microleakage es
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article en
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion en
dc.subject.unesco UNESCO::CIENCIAS MÉDICAS es
dc.identifier.doi 10.4317/jced.54843 es

View       (994.1Kb)

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace

Advanced Search

Browse

Statistics