Adhesion of a self-etching system to dental substrate prepared by Er:YAG laser or air abrasion

• Published in: Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials Vol. 86B; no. 2; pp. 321 - 329
• Main Authors: Souza-Zaroni, Wanessa C., Chinelatti, Michelle A., Delfino, Carina S., Pécora, Jesus D., Palma-Dibb, Regina G., Corona, Silmara A. M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company 01.08.2008
• Subjects: adhesion; Adhesiveness; air abrasion; Air Abrasion, Dental - methods; Dental Bonding - methods; Dental Bonding - standards; Dental Etching - methods; Er:YAG laser; Humans; Lasers; Materials Testing; microtensile bond strength; Molar, Third; Resin Cements; self-etching system; Tensile Strength
• ISSN: 1552-4973; 1552-4981
• DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31020

The purpose of this study was to assess the microtensile bond strength of a self‐etching adhesive system to enamel and dentin prepared by Er:YAG laser irradiation or air abrasion, as well as to evaluate the adhesive interfaces by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). For microtensile bond strength test, 80 third molars were randomly assigned to five groups: Group I, carbide bur, control (CB); II, air abrasion with standard tip (ST); III, air abrasion with supersonic tip (SP); IV, Er:YAG laser 250 mJ/4 Hz (L250); V, Er:YAG laser 300 mJ/4 Hz (L300). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n = 8) (enamel, E and dentin, D). E and D surfaces were treated with the self‐etching system Adper Prompt L‐Pop and composite buildups were done with Filtek Z‐250. Sticks with a cross‐sectional area of 0.8 mm2 (±0.2 mm2) were obtained and the bond strength tests were performed. Data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's test. For morphological analysis, disks of 30 third molars were restored, sectioned and prepared for SEM. Dentin presented the highest values of adhesion, differing from enamel. Laser and air‐abrasion preparations were similar to enamel. Dentin air‐abrasion with standard tip group showed higher bond strength results than Er:YAG‐laser groups, however, air‐abrasion and Er:YAG laser groups were similar to control group. SEM micrographs revealed that, for both enamel and dentin, the air‐abrasion and laser preparations presented irregular adhesive interfaces, different from the ones prepared by rotary instrument. It was concluded that cavity preparations accomplished by both Er:YAG laser energies and air abrasion tips did not positively influence the adhesion to enamel and dentin. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2008