Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOnay, E.-O.
dc.contributor.authorYamanel, K.
dc.contributor.authorKorkmaz-Ceyhan, Y.
dc.contributor.authorGulsahi, K.
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-28T10:41:56Z
dc.date.available2019-06-28T10:41:56Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn19895488
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174014/
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11727/3735
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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. Material and Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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. © Medicina Oral S. L. C.I.F.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.4317/jced.54843en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectEndodontically treated teethen_US
dc.subjectEr:YAG laseren_US
dc.subjectEtch-and-rinse adhesiveen_US
dc.subjectGingival levelen_US
dc.subjectSealing abilityen_US
dc.subjectSelf-etch adhesiveen_US
dc.titleComparison of three adhesive systems in class II composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth: Influence of Er:YAG laser conditioning and gingival margin levels on microleakageen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistryen_US
dc.identifier.volume10en_US
dc.identifier.issue8en_US
dc.identifier.startpagee781en_US
dc.identifier.endpagee788en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2018-13


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record