Chemical Treatments of Dental Surfaces Prepared with Er:Yag and Er,Cr:YSGG Lasers: A Literature Review

Abstract

The indications of lasers in dentistry are numerous. The aim of this review is to compare the adhesion to cavities prepared with Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers with conventional techniques (rotary bur) and consequently highlight the most appropriate adhesion protocol(s) to cavities prepared by either technique. A literature search was conducted in three databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. For outcomes, the morphological changes of the dental surfaces following laser irradiation are multiple: absence of dentinal sludge, open dentinal tubules, abundant peri-tubular dentin and exposed enamel crystals. Bonding to this dental substrate can be achieved using various adhesive systems. The chemical treatment of laser-prepared dental surfaces is a subject that still requires more precise and further studies are needed to establish universal protocols and recommendations of good practice.

Share and Cite:

El Merini, H. , Drouri, S. , Essafi, J. , Jabri, M. and El Ouazzani, A. (2023) Chemical Treatments of Dental Surfaces Prepared with Er:Yag and Er,Cr:YSGG Lasers: A Literature Review. Open Access Library Journal, 10, 1-15. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1110066.

1. Introduction

Cavity preparation has long been done with diamond or tungsten carbide burs mounted on high and low-speed rotary instruments. This model has partially changed since the introduction of new technologies, including the use of lasers, which allow less invasive treatments for caries removal [1] [2] .

High-power lasers have been introduced in dentistry as an alternative for cavity preparation and to promote chemical and morphological changes on the tooth surface [3] . The advantages of using lasers for dental hard tissue preparation include selective removal of decayed enamel and dentin, bactericidal effects, with less noise and vibration and discomfort to the patient.

Erbium (Erbium:Yttrio-Aluminum-Granate) lasers (Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG) are considered the most effective lasers for mineralized tissues because their wavelengths have high absorption by water and hydroxyapatite [3] . The Er:YAG laser wavelength (2940 nm) has the highest water absorption of all currently used wavelengths and also has a high affinity for hydroxyapatite [2] . Indeed, ablation is achieved by a thermomechanical interaction. When the laser is used with air and water as a cooling system, it has been shown that it does not produce undesirable changes in enamel, dentin and pulp [4] [5] . With the Er,Cr:YSGG laser (2780 nm), dentin removal is thermomechanical. The emitted laser light is absorbed by the water contained in the hydroxyapatite of the dental hard tissue [6] [7] . The water is then heated and evaporated, producing a high vapor pressure that causes a micro-explosion of the dental tissue below the melting point of the dental tissue (approximately 1200˚C) [8] .

The aim of this review is to determine the effect of laser irradiation on dental tissues through the evaluation of various changes in the chemical and morphological configuration of the irradiated substrate and to study the performance of adhesive systems on laser-prepared dental surfaces.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

The MeSH descriptors/terms used in the databases are:

PubMed: Dental and adhesive systems and lasers;

Google Scholar: Er:YAG and Er:Cr/YSGG and cavity preparation and adhesive systems;

ScienceDirect: Dentin and enamel AND Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG and adhesive systems and Bonding.

2.2. Inclusion Criteria

・ Studies conducted in the last five years;

・ Studies comparing chemical treatments of dental surfaces prepared with Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers to dental surfaces prepared with conventional methods (burs + rotary instrument);

・ Comparative studies between self-etching systems “SAM” and etching and rinsing systems “M&R” and universal systems;

・ Articles concerning only permanent human teeth;

・ Articles in English.

2.3. Exclusion Criteria

・ Articles that do not fit the research question by reading the abstracts and the full text.

3. Result

The search performed on the three databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect) using Boolean equations identified a total of 773 articles.

After deleting duplicates, a first selection based on the reading of the titles resulted in 132 articles.

Among the 132 articles, 24 were eliminated after reading the abstracts, and 108 articles were retained for full text reading.

In the end, 13 articles were retained in the present study in Figure 1.

The articles included in this study are presented in Table 1.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this work was to conduct a detailed literature review of the studies collected concerning chemical treatments of dental surfaces prepared with Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers.

Figure 1. Flow chart.

Table 1. Data extraction table for selected articles.

4.1. Erbium Lasers

Erbium lasers are long wavelength lasers and are versatile. Indeed, they allow working mainly on hard tissue but also on soft tissue [6] .

4.1.1. The Er:YAG Laser

The Er:YAG laser uses a solid-state active medium of yttrium and aluminum garnet doped with Erbium ions (Er3+). The Er:YAG laser operates via an optical pumping system characterized by a luminous flash corresponding to an absorption band of the Erbium ion (Er3+). It has a wavelength of 2940 nm corresponding to the absorption peak of water but also of hydroxyapatite. This results in a very good absorption by enamel, dentin and soft tissues. The Er:YAG laser is a very shallow penetrating laser (a few microns), which avoids heating of the peripheral tissues. It has photo-ablative and photo-acoustic effects [6] .

The parameters of the Er:YAG laser are:

Operating mode: Pulsed.

Pulse duration: 50 to 200 μs.

Pulse frequency: 15 to 20 Hz.

Energy per pulse: 20 to 1500 mJ.

Average power: 0.3 to 20 W.

4.1.2. The Er,Cr:YSGG Laser

The Er, Cr:YSGG laser has as active medium a crystal of yttrium scandium gallium garnet doped with Erbium ions (Er3+). The pumping system is also obtained by a light flash corresponding to an absorption band of the Erbium ion. As for its wavelength, it is 2780nm. The Er,Cr:YSGG and Er:YAG lasers have similar characteristics, they both have a high affinity for hydroxyapatite crystals and water. These two lasers have similar properties, however the Er,Cr:YSGG laser has a penetration of about 15 microns which is 3 times more than for the Er:YAG laser. This difference in penetration is explained by the fact that the wavelength of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser is slightly less absorbed by water at 2780 nm than the wavelength of the Er:YAG laser which operates in the water absorption peak; the difference in absorption coefficients leads to a difference in the penetration depths of the two Erbium laser wavelengths in the dental tissues [21] .

4.2. Effect of Erbium Lasers on Dental Surfaces

Cavity preparation with the Er:YAG laser instead of conventional rotary instruments results in changes in the chemical composition of the treated substrate by increasing the amount of calcium ions in laser-prepared cavities compared to those prepared with a conventional method of drilling. This change may be related to the vaporization of water and organic components, which increases the percentage of mineral content in the dentin substrate [22] .

4.3. Conditioning of Dental Surfaces with Erbium Lasers

In restorative dentistry, Erbium lasers can be used not only for cavity preparation but also for the treatment of dental surfaces intended for bonding, by modifying the laser parameters (power, energy, pulse duration, frequency). Indeed, the Er,YAG laser can be used for cavity preparation at 200 mJ, 20 Hz and for surface treatment of dentin at 80 mJ, 10 Hz [10] .

We classified the studies included in this review into:

­ Comparative studies between laser-prepared cavities and those prepared with a rotary bur.

­ Comparative studies between different adhesive systems (SAM and M&R) and universal systems.

­ Studies dealing with the pretreatment of dental surfaces prepared with Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers.

4.3.1. Comparison of Cavities Prepared with Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSGG Laser and Those Prepared with a Rotary Bur

1) Infiltration studies

Several studies have shown that cavity preparation with diamond bur followed by acid treatment of the enamel surface and application of an all-in-one adhesive system had the lowest infiltration values compared to laser prepared surfaces [1] [12] [23] [24] [25] . However, other studies have shown that there was no statistically significant difference in infiltration values between these two preparation methods [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] .

2) Mechanical tests

Shadman et al. [19] found that the shear strength of dentin prepared with a rotary bur was higher than if it was prepared with a 4 W and 5 W laser. It is the changes in the hydroxyapatite with areas of carbonization, amides and proteins as well as decomposition and disproportion of minerals that causes more microcracks. The denatured matrix proteins thus prevent proper penetration of the adhesive into the collagen matrix, preventing the formation of a proper hybrid layer at the tooth/restorative interface thus decreasing the shear strength [20] [31] [32] [33] . A decrease in bond strength has been shown on surfaces prepared with the Er:YAG laser (2 Hz, 300 mJ for enamel preparation, 250 mJ for dentin preparation) following the formation of a laser-modified layer [20] .

However, with the Er,Cr:YSGG laser “6 W, 15 Hz, 80% water spray and 50% air spray” the shear strength is significantly higher than with bur preparations. This could be due to the irregularities and interlocking of the laser-irradiated hard tissue, which increases the contact surface and improves the bonding of the resin to the prepared tooth surface. In addition, laser irradiation creates a surface free of dentin sludge, with open dentin tubules that allow infiltration of the adhesive resin into the tubules to form bonds between the dentin surfaces and the resin, making the surface more favorable for adhesion [10] [20] .

Other studies have shown no significant difference in bond strength between the two preparation techniques (laser/diamond bur) when a 35% phosphoric acid etch is used on the dentin surface [12] [34] [35] .

3) Evaluation of the thickness of the hybrid layer

According to Kallis et al. [17] , cavity preparation with the Er,YAG laser “3.75 W, 15 Hz, 250 mJ, water spray 20 ml/min, QSP mode” produces a rough dentin surface, not demineralized but with open dentin tubules, which can improve micromechanical retention. In contrast, in bur-prepared dentin, the surface is smoother, and the dentinal tubules are covered with dentinal sludge that prevents resin infiltration. These morphological characteristics may explain the greater thickness of the hybrid layers formed in laser-treated surfaces.

However, other studies using a “126 mj and 180 mj” Er:YAG laser have reported low laser efficacy for the preparation of dental surfaces [36] [37] . These contradictions can be attributed to various parameters such as different laser irradiation parameters, dental substrates, experimental design, methodology, etc.

4.3.2. Choice of Adhesive for Cavities Prepared with ER:YAG and ER, CR:YSGG Lasers

The universal adhesive containing MDP improves the bonding quality, and this is due to the ability of 10-MDPmonomer to create a chemical bond with hydroxyapatite resulting in the formation of a durable nanolayer and consequently an increase in mechanical strength [10] . The universal adhesive in M&R mode significantly increases the adhesion values to laser-irradiated dentin compared to the universal adhesive used in self-etch mode [38] [39] . In fact, the shear strength of laser-prepared dentin increases when surface treatment with M&R adhesive is performed [19] .

Surface treatment with Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation prior to bonding with a self-etching adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond) significantly increases the bond to eroded dentin [3] . Laser irradiation removes the eroded dentin layer, revealing a dent in surface that is more favorable for adhesion, without adversely affecting the dentin substrate [33] [40] [41] .

The use of the M&R adhesive after Er:YAG laser preparation allows for a greater hybrid layer thickness than those treated with the self-etching adhesive [17] . However, the laser-prepared surfaces showed an increase in calcium and phosphate ions and a reduction in carbonate and water after thermal effects and crystallographic changes [18] .

The carboxyl groups in the self-etching adhesive can chemically bind to hydroxyapatite and calcium and thus form stable calcium salts that enhance resin adhesion through the formation of strong ionic interactions between the substrate and the adhesive layer [42] .

Comparison between self-etching systems

Cavities prepared with the Er:YAG laser at 490 mJ and 15 Hz showed that the tensile strength with a HEMA-containing adhesive was better than that with an adhesive without HEMA [11] . This is because the hydrophilic nature of HEMA promotes adhesion, improves wetting of the dentin and thus the bond strength. The better bond strength obtained with the HEMA-rich and ethanol-water-based self-etch adhesiveskept exposed collagen moist and does not collapse as much as air-dried dentin [43] .

In addition, moist dentin may provide a more porous collagen network, allowing greater infiltration of adhesive monomers than on surfaces that are air-dried and in which the collagen collapses.

4.3.3. Pre-Treatment of Dental Surfaces Prepared with ER:YAG and ER, CR:YSGG Lasers

According to Chen M.L et al. [13] , pretreatment with phosphoric acid or low-frequency Er:YAG laser irradiation “150 mJ; 10 Hz; short-pulse mode (SP, 300 μs); average power of 1.5 W; 19.10 J/cm2 energy delivered/pulse;10 ml/min water spray” significantly improved the bond strength between self-etching adhesives and laser-prepared dentin “P = 4 W, Pulse duration = 100 μs, E = 200 mJ, F = 20 Hz, Energy density: 25.46 J/cm2”.

However, in the study by Ceballo et al. [37] , laser preparation of dental surfaces combined with 35% phosphoric acid etching resulted in decreased shear strength values for a two-step total-etch adhesive. Their results also demonstrated that 35% phosphoric acid can only remove the surface of the laser-modified dentin layer, leaving partially denatured collagen fibrils that likely interfere with adhesive resin infiltration.

Preconditioning with phosphoric acid or phosphoric acid followed by sodium hypochlorite increases the bonding strength of the composite resin to the enamel and dentin prepared with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser [15] . This is due to the ability of phosphoric acid and/or sodium hypochlorite to remove the denatured dentin layer produced by the laser irradiation resulting in the opening of the dentinal tubules which subsequently facilitates the infiltration of the adhesive resin. However, the application of sodium hypochlorite after the acid etches dissolves not only the collagen in the heat-denatured dentin, but also the collagen in the healthy dentin directly underneath the denatured layer. Excessive pretreatment of the laser-prepared dentin could induce embrittlement of the hybrid layer at the adhesive interface and thus decrease the bond strength values [15] .

According to Jhingan et al. [20] , pre-etching of Er,Cr:YSGG laser-prepared tooth surfaces with phosphoric acid has a negative effect on the shear strength of self-etching adhesives.

This can be explained by the increased loss of calcium from the collagen network on the conditioned surface due to the strongly acidic action of phosphoric acid (pH = 0.5 to 1), resulting in a decrease in chemical bonds between the tooth surface and the self-etching adhesive.

In contrast to these results, Ergücü et al. [44] showed that surface treatment with an acid primer or phosphoric acid after laser preparation of the dentin significantly increased the adhesion values by removing the laser irradiation modified dentin layer that appeared to be resistant to acid attack [45] .

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, laser treatment has no negative effect on the bonding performance of adhesion. Several factors can explain the difference in results between studies in chemical treatment of laser-prepared tooth surfaces, such as:

­ The type of laser used used Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSGG;

­ The parameters of the laser device: energy, frequency, application mode;

­ The type of adhesive system used: SAM, M&R or universal.

There is currently no consensus on the parameters of the lasers and adhesive systems to be used. Future high-quality studies could provide universal protocols.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Yaman, B.C., Efes, B.G., Dörter, C., Gömec, Y., Erdilek, D. and Yazicioglu, O. (2011) Microleakage of Repaired Class V Silorane and Nano-Hybrid Composite Restorations after Preparation with Erbium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet Laser and Diamond Bur. Lasers in Medical Science, 26, 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-010-0755-3
[2] Keller, U. and Hibst, R. (1989) Experimental Studies of the Application of the Er:YAG Laser on Dental Hard Substances: II. Light Microscopic and SEM Investigations. Lasers in Medical Science, 9, 345-351. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.1900090406
[3] Ramos, T.M., Ramos-Oliveira, T.M., de Freitas, P.M., Azambuja, N., Esteves-Oliveira, M., Gutknecht, N., et al. (2015) Effects of Er:YAG and Er, Cr:YSGG Laser Irradiation on the Adhesion to Eroded Dentin. Lasers in Medical Science, 30, 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-013-1321-6
[4] Hoke, J.A., Burkes, E.J., Gomes, E.D. and Wolbarsht, M.L. (1990) Erbium:YAG (2.94 mum) Laser Effects on Dental Tissues. Journal of Laser Applications, 2, 61-65. https://doi.org/10.2351/1.4745270
[5] Burkes, E.J., Hoke, J., Gomes, E. and Wolbarsht, M. (1992) Wet versus Dry Enamel Ablation by Er:YAG Laser. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 67, 847-851. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90599-6
[6] Meister, J., Franzen, R., Forner, K., et al. (2006) Influence of the Water Content in Dental Enamel and Dentin on Ablation with Erbium YAG and Erbium YSGG Lasers. Journal of Biomedical Optics, 11, 34030. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.2204028
[7] Kim, K.S., Kim, M.E. and Shin, E.J. (2005) Irradiation Time and Ablation Rate of Enamel in Contact and Non-Contact Irradiation with Er:YAG Laser. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 23, 216-218. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2005.23.216
[8] Serebro, L., Segal, T., Nordenberg, D., Gorfil, C. and Bar-Lev, M. (1987) Examination of Tooth Pulp Following Laser Beam Irradiation. Lasers in Medical Science, 7, 236-239. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.1900070306
[9] Tzimas, K., Gerasimou, P., Strakas, D., Tolidis, K. and Tsitrou, E. (2019) Comparative Assessment of Diamond Bur and Er,Cr:YSGG Laser Irradiation for Cavity Preparation and Tissue Modification: A Microleakage Study. Lasers in Dental Science, 3, 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41547-019-00053-y
[10] Dönmez, N., Gungör, A.S., Karabulut, B. and Siso, S.H. (2019) Comparison of the Micro-Tensile Bond Strengths of Four Different Universal Adhesives to Caries-Affected Dentin after ER:YAG Laser Irradiation. Dental Materials Journal, 38, 218-225. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-428
[11] Bishnoi, A.K., Adyanthaya, R., Singh, S., Kapasi, A.S. and Jain, K. (2019) Effect of Er:YAG Laser Cavity Preparation on the Bond Strength of 2-Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate-Free and 2-Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate-Rich Self-Etch Adhesive Systems: An in Vitro Study. Dental Research Journal, 16, 389-397. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.270789
[12] Cebe, F., Bulbul, M., Simsek, I., Cebe, M.A. and Ozturk, B. (2017) Effect of Erbium:Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser on Bond Strength of a Total-Etch Adhesive System to Caries-Affected Dentin on Gingival Wall. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, 20, 734-740. https://doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.181321
[13] Chen, M.L., Ding, J.F., He, Y.J., Chen, Y. and Jiang, Q.Z. (2015) Effect of Pretreatment on Er:YAG Laser-Irradiated Dentin. Lasers in Medical Science, 30, 753-759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-013-1415-1
[14] Vohra, F., Alghamdi, A., Aldakkan, M., Alharthi, S., Alturaigi, O., Alrabiah, M., et al. (2018) Influence of Er:Cr:YSGG Laser on Adhesive Strength and Microleakage of Dentin Bonded to Resin Composite. In-Vitro Study. Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy, 23, 342-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2018.08.002
[15] Takada, M., Shinkai, K., Kato, C. and Suzuki, M. (2015) Bond Strength of Composite Resin to Enamel and Dentin Prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG Laser. Dental Materials Journal, 34, 863-871. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2015-053
[16] Ahmed, Z.A. and Chakmakchi, M.N. (2015) Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Laser Treated Dentin Using Different Adhesive Systems. Al-Rafidain Dental Journal, 15, 405-411. https://doi.org/10.33899/rden.2015.160882
[17] Kallis, A., Tolidis, K., Gerasimou, P. and Dionysopoulos, D. (2019) Qualitative Evaluation of Hybrid Layer Formation Using Er:YAG Laser in QSP Mode for Tooth Cavity Preparations. Lasers in Medical Science, 34, 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-018-2575-9
[18] Guven, Y. and Aktoren, O. (2015) Shear Bond Strength and Ultrastructural Interface Analysis of Different Adhesive Systems to Er:YAG Laser-Prepared Dentin. Lasers in Medical Science, 30, 769-778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-013-1424-0
[19] Shadman, N., Ebrahimi, S.F., Amanpour, S. and Mehdizadeh, S. (2019) Shear Bond Strength of a Multi-Mode Adhesive to Bur-Cut and Er,Cr:YSGG Lased Dentin in Different Output Powers. Journal of Dentistry, 20, 118.
[20] Jhingan, P., Sachdev, V., Sandhu, M. and Sharma, K. (2015) Shear Bond Strength of Self-Etching Adhesives to Cavities Prepared by Diamond Bur or Er,Cr:YSGG Laser and Effect of Prior Acid Etching. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 17, 505-512.
[21] Diaci, J. and Gaspirc, B. (2012) Review. Comparison of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG Lasers Used in Dentistry. Journal of the Laser and Health Academy, 1, 1-13.
[22] Moosavi, H., Ghorbanzadeh, S. and Ahrari, F. (2016) Structural and Morphological Changes in Human Dentin after Ablative and Subablative Er:YAG Laser Irradiation. Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences, 7, 86-91. https://doi.org/10.15171/jlms.2016.15
[23] Korkmaz, Y., Ozel, E., Attar, N., Bicer, C.O. and Firatli, E. (2010) 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 in Medical Science, 25, 493-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-009-0672-5
[24] Ceballos, L., Osorio, R., Toledano, M. and Marshall, G.W. (2001) Microleakage of Composite Restorations after Acid or Er-YAG Laser Cavity Treatments. Dental Materials, 17, 340-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00092-0
[25] Ozel, E., Tuna, E.B. and Firatli, E. (2016) The Effects of Cavity-Filling Techniques on Microleakage in Class II Resin Restorations Prepared with Er:YAG Laser and Diamond Bur: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Study. Scanning, 38, 389-395. https://doi.org/10.1002/sca.21282
[26] Bahrololoomi, Z., Kabudan, M. and Gholami, L. (2015) Effect of Er:YAG Laser on Shear Bond Strength of Composite to Enamel and Dentin of Primary Teeth. Journal of Dentistry Tehran Iran, 12, 163.
[27] Hossain, M., Nakamura, Y., Yamada, Y., Kimura, Y., Nakamura, G. and Matsumoto, K. (1999) Ablation Depths and Morphological Changes in Human Enamel and Dentin after Er:YAG Laser Irradiation with or without Water Mist. Journal of Clinical Laser Medicine & Surgery, 17, 105-109. https://doi.org/10.1089/clm.1999.17.105
[28] Korkmaz, F.M., Baygin, O., Tuzuner, T., Bagis, B. and Arslan, I. (2013) The Effect of an Erbium, Chromium:Yttrium-Scandium-Gallium-Garnet Laser on the Microleakage and Bond Strength of Silorane and Micro-Hybrid Composite Restorations. European Journal of Dentistry, 7, S033-S040. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.119061
[29] Marotti, J., Geraldo-Martins, V.R., Bello-Silva, M.S., de Paula Eduardo, C., Apel, C. and Gutknecht, N. (2010) Influence of Etching with Erbium, Chromium:Yttrium-Scandium-Gallium-Garnet Laser on Microleakage of Class V Restoration. Lasers in Medical Science, 25, 325-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-008-0623-6
[30] Moldes, V.L., Capp, C.I., Navarro, R.S., Matos, A.B., Youssef, M.N. and Cassoni, A. (2009) In Vitro Microleakage of Composite Restorations Prepared by Er:YAG/Er, Cr:YSGG Lasers and Conventional Drills Associated with Two Adhesive Systems. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 11, 221-229.
[31] Dela Rosa, A., Sarma, A.V., Le, C.Q., Jones, R.S. and Fried, D. (2004) Peripheral Thermal and Mechanical Damage to Dentin with Microsecond and Sub-Microsecond 9.6 Microm, 2.79 Microm, and 0.355 Microm Laser Pulses. Lasers in Medical Science, 35, 214-228. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.20090
[32] Bachmann, L., Diebolder, R., Hibst, R. and Zezell, D.M. (2005) Changes in Chemical Composition and Collagen Structure of Dentine Tissue after Erbium Laser Irradiation. Spectrochimica Acta, Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 61, 2634-2639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2004.09.026
[33] Lee, B.-S., Lin, P.-Y., Chen, M.-H., et al. (2007) Tensile Bond Strength of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser-Irradiated Human Dentin and Analysis of Dentin-Resin Interface. Dental Materials, 23, 570-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.03.016
[34] Sirin Karaarslan, E., Yildiz, E., Cebe, M.A., Yegin, Z. and Ozturk, B. (2012) Evaluation of Micro-Tensile Bond Strength of Caries-Affected Human Dentine after Three Different Caries Removal Techniques. Journal of Dentistry, 40, 793-801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.05.013
[35] Sattabanasuk, V., Burrow, M.F., Shimada, Y. and Tagami, J. (2006) Resin Adhesion to Caries-Affected Dentine after Different Removal Methods. Australian Dental Journal, 51, 162-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00421.x
[36] Kataumi, M., Nakajima, M., Yamada, T. and Tagami, J. (1998) Tensile Bond Strength and SEM Evaluation of Er:YAG Laser Irradiated Dentin Using Dentin Adhesive. Dental Materials Journal, 17, 125-138. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.17.125
[37] Ceballo, L., Toledano, M., Osorio, R., Tay, F.R. and Marshall, G.W. (2002) Bonding to Er-YAG-Laser-Treated Dentin. Journal of Dental Research, 81, 119-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0810119
[38] Abo-Hamar, S.E., Hiller, K.-A., Jung, H., Federlin, M., Friedl, K.-H. and Schmalz, G. (2005) Bond Strength of a New Universal Self-Adhesive Resin Luting Cement to Dentin and Enamel. Clinical Oral Investigations, 9, 161-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0308-5
[39] Diniz, A.C., Bandeca, M.C., Pinheiro, L.M., et al. (2016) Influence of Different Etching Modes on Bond Strength to Enamel Using Universal Adhesive Systems. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, 17, 820-825. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1937
[40] Esteves-Oliveira, M., Zezell, D.M., Apel, C., et al. (2007) Bond Strength of Self-Etching Primer to Bur Cut, Er,Cr:YSGG, and Er:YAG Lased Dental Surfaces. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 25, 373-380. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2007.2044
[41] Ramos, A.C.B., Esteves-Oliveira, M., Arana-Chavez, V.E. and de Paula Eduardo, C. (2010) Adhesives Bonded to Erbium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet Laser-Irradiated Dentin: Transmission Electron Microscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy and Tensile Bond Strength Analyses. Lasers in Medical Science, 25, 181-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-008-0600-0
[42] Tay, F.R., Sano, H., Carvalho, R., Pashley, E.L. and Pashley, D.H. (2000) An Ul-trastructural Study of the Influence of Acidity of Self-Etching Primers and Smear Layer Thickness on Bonding to Intact Dentin. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2, 83-98.
[43] Nikhil, V., Singh, V. and Chaudhry, S. (2011) Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength of Three Contemporary Self-Etch Adhesives: An ex Vivo Study. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, 2, 94-97. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.83068
[44] Ergucu, Z., Celik, E.U., Unlu, N., Turkun, M. and Ozer, F. (2009) Effect of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Two Different Adhesives to the Sound and Caries-Affected Dentin. Operative Dentistry, 34, 460-466. https://doi.org/10.2341/08-005-L
[45] Hossain, M., Kimura, Y., Nakamura, Y., Yamada, Y., Kinoshita, J.I. and Matsumoto, K. (2001) A Study on Acquired Acid Resistance of Enamel and Dentin Irradiated by Er,Cr:YSGG Laser. Journal of Clinical Laser Medicine & Surgery, 19, 159-163. https://doi.org/10.1089/10445470152927991

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.