Abstract

Background: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the degree of microleakage on enamel and dentin margins of class V cavities prepared with either a high-speed drill or an Er,Cr:YSGG laser (2780 nm) and to associate their use with a beveling method for the margin. Method and Materials: Sixty bovine incisors were randomly distributed into three groups. Group 1 (G1) cavities were laser prepared and bur beveled, group 2 (G2) cavities were bur prepared and beveled, while cavities of group 3 (G3) were laser prepared and beveled. Cavities were restored with selective enamel etching, using the same bonding agent and nano-hybrid resin composite for all groups. After thermocycling, microleakage was assessed using a methylene blue dye penetration method. Results: Statistical analysis (Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn’s multiple comparison tests) demonstrated significantly higher microleakage for dentin compared to enamel margins in G1. Enamel margin microleakage was found to be significantly higher at G3 compared to G1 (p=0.032) and G2 (p=0.001), while no significant differences were found between G1 and G2 (p=0.850). Regarding dentin margins, G2 group performed significantly better than G1 and G3 (p<<0.001), while there was no significant difference among G1 and G3 scores (p=1.000). Conclusions: The conventional cavity preparation method seems to perform better in terms of microleakage than the Er,Cr;YSGG laser. Laser-prepared cavities could perform better in terms of microleakage if an additional step of enamel bur-beveling is performed prior to restoration.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call