Publication:
Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er:YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorDURMUŞ, BAŞAK
dc.contributor.authorsPeker, Sertac; Giray, Figen Eren; Durmus, Basak; Bekiroglu, Nural; Kargul, Betul; Ozcan, Mutlu
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-14T08:25:43Z
dc.date.available2022-03-14T08:25:43Z
dc.date.issued2017-03-04
dc.description.abstractThis study evaluated the effect of tooth preparation method (diamond bur vs. Er:YAG laser) on the microleakage levels of glass ionomers and resin composite. Human permanent premolars (N = 80) were randomly divided into two groups (n = 40). Cavities on half of the teeth were prepared using diamond bur for enamel and carbide bur for dentin and the other half using Er: YAG laser. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups according to the restoration materials, namely (a) ChemFil Rock (CFR), (b) IonoluxAC (IAC), (c) EQUIA system (EQA) and one resin composite (d) AeliteLS (ALS) (n = 10 per group). Microleakage (mu m) was assessed at the occlusal and gingival margins after dye penetration (0.5% basic fuchsine for 24 h). On the occlusal aspect, while the cavity preparation types significantly affected the microleakage for CFR (p = 0.015), IAC (p = 0.001) glass ionomer restorations, it did not show significant effect for glass ionomer EQA (p = 0.09) and resin composite ALS (p = 0.2). Er: YAG laser presented less microleakage compared to bur preparation in all groups except for EQA. On the gingival aspect, microleakage decreased significantly for CFR (p = 0.02), IAC (p = 0.001), except for EQA where significant increase was observed (p = 0.001) with the use of Er: YAG laser. Microleakage decrease was not significant at the gingival region between diamond bur and Er: YAG laser for ALS (p = 0.663). At the occlusal and gingival sites in all groups within each preparation method, microleakage level was not significant.
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/01694243.2016.1220471
dc.identifier.eissn1568-5616
dc.identifier.issn0169-4243
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11424/241766
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000392211600005
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherTAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectDental lasers
dc.subjectEr:YAG laser
dc.subjectglass ionomer
dc.subjectmicroleakage
dc.subjectresin composite
dc.subjectER-YAG LASER
dc.subjectIN-VITRO
dc.subjectBOND STRENGTH
dc.subjectRESTORATIONS
dc.subjectCARIES
dc.subjectFORMULATIONS
dc.subjectBUR
dc.titleMicroleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er:YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.avesis.id4fb884a3-1a35-481e-8851-136877bf18fd
local.import.packageSS16
local.indexed.atWOS
local.indexed.atSCOPUS
local.journal.numberofpages11
local.journal.quartileQ3
oaire.citation.endPage519
oaire.citation.issue5
oaire.citation.startPage509
oaire.citation.titleJOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
oaire.citation.volume31
relation.isAuthorOfPublication8ab94135-1b8f-4187-b7f8-c5f1312f6daf
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery8ab94135-1b8f-4187-b7f8-c5f1312f6daf

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Peker et al. - 2017 - Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using co.pdf
Size:
195.61 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Research Outputs