In vitro evaluation of microleakage in Class V restorations after cavity preparation with high speed, ultrasonic and laser.

Authors

  • Jéssika Barcellos Giuriato Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo
  • Patricia Moreira Freitas Special Laboratory of Lasers in Dentistry (LELO), Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo
  • Denis Yudi Nagase Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo
  • Margareth Oda Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2357-8041.v20i1p39-45

Keywords:

Microleakage. Cavity preparation. Ultrasound. Laser.

Abstract

In Restorative Dentistry, one of the difficulties continues to be microleakage around cavities restored with esthetic materials. Characterized by  gap formation due failure of the restorative material bond to cavity walls, microleakage is the factor that most influences restoration  durability. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the degree of microleakage of Class V restorations when different instruments are used for cavity preparation. Methods: Class V cavities were performed in 30 bovine teeth that were divided into three treatment groups (n=10): G1 – preparation with diamond bur, G2 – preparation with Er,Cr: YSGG laser (2.78 µm), and G3 – preparation with diamond tips attached to the ultrasonic system (CVDentus). All cavities were restored with composite resin according to manufacturer’s specifications. The specimens were subjected to thermal cycling (700 cycles, 5±1ºC and 55±1°C) and immersed in 2% methylene blue for microleakage evaluation. Teeth were longitudinally sectioned and images were captured using a stereomicroscope at 50X magnification. Three evaluators examined the images according to the scale proposed by Retief. Data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn tests. Results: Statistically significant differences were verified between treatment groups (p=0.0007). The highest microleakage rates were found for Group G2, which differed significantly from the other treatment groups. There was no statistically significant difference between G1 and G3. Conclusion: Different cavity preparation techniques may influence the microleakage in Class V restorations, and use of ultrasound technique was found to be an effective alternative.

Keywords: Microleakage. Cavity preparation. Ultrasound. Laser.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Jéssika Barcellos Giuriato, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo
    Master degree Student, department of Restorative Dentistry.
  • Patricia Moreira Freitas, Special Laboratory of Lasers in Dentistry (LELO), Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo
    Assistant Professor, Special Laboratory of Lasers in Dentistry (LELO), Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry of São Paulo, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
  • Denis Yudi Nagase, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo
    Doctoral Student, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry of São Paulo, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
  • Margareth Oda, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo
    Associate Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry of São Paulo, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil

References

Akiremitci A, Yenen Z. Microleakage of a resin sealant after Er,Cr:YSGG Laser irradiation and ir-abrasion of pits and fissures. Laser Zahneilkunde 2006(Suppl); 2(6):86.

Atoui JÁ, Chinelatti MA, Palma-Dibb RG, Corona SAM. Microleakage in conservative cavities varying the preparation method and surface treatment. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2010;18(4):421-425.

Attar N, Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Bicer CO, Firatli E. Microleakage of Class V

Cavities with Different Adhesive Systems Prepared by Diamond Instrument and

Different Parameters of Er:YAG Laser Irradiation. Photomed Laser Surg. 2008;

(6): 585-591.

Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955;34(6):349-353.

Borsatto MC, Corona SAM, Chinelatti MA, Ramos RP, Rocha RASS, Pecora JD, Palma RG. Comparison of marginal microleakage of flowable composite restorations in primary molars prepared by high-speed carbide bur, Er:YAG laser ad air abrasion. ASDC J Dent. 2006; 73(2):122-126.

Corona AS, Borsatto MC, Dibb RG, Ramos RP, Brugnera A, Percora JD. Microleakage of class V resin composite restorations after bur, air-abrasion or Ey:YAG laser preparation. Oper Dent. 2001; 26(5):491-7.

Delmé KIM, DemanPJ, Bruyne MAA, Moor RJG. Microleakage of four different restorative glass ionomer formulations in class V cavities. Photomed Laser Surg. 2008; 26(6):541-549.

Going RE. Microleakage around dental restorations a summarizing review. J Am Dent Assoc. 1972;84:1349-57.

Karaarslan ES, Usumez A, Ozturk B, Cebe MA. Effect of cavity preparation techniques and different preheating produces on microleakage of class V resin restorations. Eur J Dent. 2012; 6(1):87-94.

Kidd EAM. Microleakage: a review. J Dent. 1976;4(5):199-206.

Kimyai S, Ajami AA, Chaharom MEE, Oskoee JS. Comparison of microleakage of three adhesive systems in class V composite Restorations prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG laser. Photomed Laser Surg. 2010; 28(4):505-510.

Khambay BS, Walmsley AD. Investigations into the use of an ultrasonic chisel to cut bone. Part 2: cutting ability. J Dent. 2000;28(1):39-44.

Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, Bicer CO, Firatli E. Microleakage and Scanning

Electron Microscopy Evaluation of All-in-one Self-etch Adhesives and Their

Respective Nanocomposites Prepared by Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet Laser

and Bur. Lasers Med Sci 2010; 25(4): 493-502.

Moreto SG, Azambuja N Jr, Arana-Chavez VE, Reis AF, Giannini M, Eduardo CP, De Freitas PM. Effects of ultramorphological changes on adhesion to lased dentin-Scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy analysis. Microscop. Res Tech. 2011; 74(8):720-6.

Oliveira J, Dorado L, Koch D, Scur A, Barbosa A. Marginal microleakage in cavities prepared with cvd tip and 245 bur. Dent Impl Up. 2009; 20(3):17-23.

Opdam N, Roeters J, Berghem EY, Eijsvogels E, Bronkhorst E. Microleakage and damage to adjacent teeth when finishing Class II adhesive preparations using either a sonic device or bur. Am J Dent. 2002; 15:317-20.

Ozel E, Korkmaz Y, Attar N, Bicer CO, Firatli E. Leakage Pathway of

Different Nano-restorative Materials in Class V Cavities Prepared by Er:YAG

Laser and Bur Preparation. Photomed Laser Surg 2009; 27(5): 783-789

Pioch T, Stos S, Buff E, Duschner H, Staehle HJ. Influence of different etching times on hybrid layer formation and tensile Bond strength. Am J Dent. 1998;11(5):202-6.

Pulga NVG, Pulga FG, Ribeiro RC, Ribeiro MS, Ramos A, Turbino ML. Marginal microleakage evaluation in Class V composite restorations of deciduous teeth prepared conventionally and using Er: YAG laser. Lasers Surg Med 2002(Suppl);14:81.

Retief DH. Standardizing laboratory adhesion tests. Am J Dent. 1991; 4(5):231-236.

Setien VJ, Cobb DS, Denehy GE, Vargas MA. Cavity preparation devices: effect on microleakage of Class V resin-based composite restorations. Am J Dent. 2001;14(3):157-62.

Vieira ASB, Santos MPA, Antunes LAA, Primo LG, Maia LC. Preparation time and sealing effect of cavities prepared by an ultrasonic device and a high-speed diamond Rotary cutting system. J Oral Sci. 2007; 49(3):207-211.

Yaman BC, Gurary BE, Dorter C, Gomeç Y, Yazıcıoglu O, Erdilek D. Effect of the erbium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser or diamond bur cavity preparation on the marginal microleakage of class V cavities restored with different adhesives and composites systems. Lasers Med Sci. 2011; 26:163-170.

Yazici AR, Yildirim Z, Antonson SA, Kilinc E, Koch D, Antonson DE, Dayangaç B, Ozgünaltay G. Comparison of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser with a chemical vapour deposition bur and conventional techniques for cavity preparation: a microleakage study. Lasers Med Sci. 2010; 27(1):23-9.

Youssef MN, Youssef FA, Souza-Zaroni WC, Turbino ML, Vieira MMF.Effect of enamel preparation method in vitro marginal microleakage of a flowable composite used as pit and fissure sealat. Iternational Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2006; 16:342-347.

Downloads

Published

2014-02-26

Issue

Vol. 20 No. 1 (2014)

Section

Original Research

License

Authors are requested to send, together with the letter to the Editors, a term of responsibility. Thus, the works submitted for appreciation for publication must be accompanied by a document containing the signature of each of the authors, the model of which is presented as follows:

I/We, _________________________, author(s) of the work entitled_______________, now submitted for the appreciation of Clinical and Laboratorial Research in Dentistry, agree that the authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Date: ____/____/____Signature(s): _______________