Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of different Er:YAG laser (λ = 2.94 μm) energy parameters on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and superficial morphology of bovine enamel bleached with 16% carbamide peroxide. Laser irradiation could improve adhesion to bleached enamel surfaces. Sixty bovine enamel blocks (7 × 3 × 3 mm(3)) were randomly assigned to six groups according to enamel preparation procedures (n = 10): G1-bleaching and Er:YAG laser irradiation with 25.52 J/cm(2) (laser A, LA); G2-bleaching and Er:YAG laser irradiation with 4.42 J/cm(2) (laser B, LB); G3-bleaching; G4-Er:YAG laser irradiation with 25.52 J/cm(2); G5-Er:YAG laser irradiation with 4.42 J/cm(2); G6-control, no treatment. G1 to G3 were bleached for 6 h during 21 days. Afterwards, enamel surfaces in all groups were slightly abraded with 600-grit SiC papers and G1, G2, G4 and G5 were irradiated according to each protocol. Enamel blocks were then restored with an etch-and-rinse adhesive system and a 4-mm thick composite buildup was made in two increments (n = 9). After 24 h, restored blocks were serially sectioned with a cross-section area of ∼1 mm(2) at the bonded interface and tested in tension in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Failure mode was determined at a magnification of x100 using a stereomicroscope. One treated block of each group was selected for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. μTBS data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and no statistical differences were observed among groups. Mean bond strengths (SD) in MPa were: G1-30.4(6.2); G2-27.9(8.5); G3-32.3(3.9); G4-23.7(5.8); G5-29.3(6.0); G6-29.1(6.1). A large number of adhesive failures was recorded for bleached and irradiated enamel surfaces. Bleached enamel surfaces μTBS values were not significantly different from those of unbleached enamel. Even though Er:YAG laser irradiation with both parameters had no influence on μTBS for bleached and unbleached enamel, SEM analysis revealed that Er:YAG laser irradiation with 25.52 J/cm(2) should not be recommended, as enamel ablation was observed, whereas irradiation with 4.42 J/cm(2) did not promote any remarkable changes on enamel surface.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
