Basic study on vibrations during tooth preparations caused by high‐speed drilling and Er:YAG laser irradiation

Takamori, Kazunori; Furukawa, Hirohiko; Morikawa, Y.; Katayama, Tadashi; Watanabe, Shigeru

doi:10.1002/lsm.10140

Cited by 79 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies found that laser irradiation exhibited same or even better microleakage outcome than did the conventional bur method [53][54][55] , but other studies had contradictory results 29,52) . During cavity preparation with burs, the inevitable noise, vibration, pressure, and heat caused by high-speed drilling inevitably brings much discomfort and displeasure to the patient 56,57) . Detrimental temperature increase in the pulp can cause the cells to deteriorate, leading to pulpal pain and sensitivity 56) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of different types of adhesive systems on the microleakage of compomer restorations in Class V cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser in primary teeth

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of different types of adhesive systems on the microleakage of compomer restorations in Class V cavities prepared by erbium, chromium: yttrium scandium gallium garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser. There were five test groups according to the type of adhesive applied to the cavities: Adper Single Bond 2 (Group 1), Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus (Group 2), Xeno III (Group 3), Clearfil Protect Bond (Group 4), Prime&Bond NT (Group 5). Dye penetration was evaluated under a stereomicroscope, and data were statistically analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests. Gingival margins showed significantly higher microleakage than occlusal margins in all the test groups (p<0.05). Groups 1 and 2 showed significantly less microleakage than Group 5 (p<0.05), and there were no statistically significant differences among Groups 3, 4, and 5 (p>0.05). None of the dentin bonding agents eliminated microleakage completely, and higher microleakage scores were observed along the gingival margin than the occlusal margin.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of different types of adhesive systems on the microleakage of compomer restorations in Class V cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser in primary teeth

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Takamori et al laser irradiation could be hasten by two possible approaches: The first would be increased irradiation energy; but this would cause thermal damage to enamel and dentin, a discomforting vibration and simultaneous pain. 35 The second would be to increase the rate of pulse repetition. In the present study 'VSP' (very short pulse) waveform was selected in order to maintain an adequate ablation with sufficient speed.…”

Section: Pain and Discomfort (Fig 4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mean vibration speed during laser cavity preparation reaches 166 ± 28 μm/second, at a characteristic frequency of 230 Hz, whereas the air rotor induces an almost 400 times greater vibration speed than the Er:YAG laser irradiation, which causes pain and displeasure in the patient. 35 Takamori et al suggested that high-speed drilling may cause greater bone conduction than the Er:YAG laser irradiation which could possibly lead to mild headaches or discomfort. Laser produces transient anesthetic effect on the tooth by blocking nerve conduction at Na/K pump and ablating dentinal tubules.…”

Section: Pain and Discomfort (Fig 4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Evaluation of Caries Removal in Primary Teeth using Conventional, Chemomechanical and Laser Technique: An in vivo Study

Bohari¹,

Chunawalla²,

Ahmed³

2012

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:To evaluate four different techniques of caries excavation in primary teeth in terms of efficacy, efficiency and pain experienced during the procedure. Materials and methods:Sample of 120 teeth from children aged 5 to 9 years were equally divided into 4 groups -Air rotor (group A), Carisolv (group B), Papacarie (group C) and Er:YAG laser (group D). Visual and tactile criteria along with DIAGNOdent pen value was used to evaluate efficacy. Time was recorded to determine efficiency and FLACC scale was used to assess the pain experienced.Results: Air rotor and laser were more effective and efficient method whereas laser and CMCR methods were more comfortable methods. Conclusion:Laser irradiation and CMCR methods are comparable to conventional methods in terms of effectiveness and are less painful methods.Clinical significance: Newer techniques of CMCR and laser irradiation of dentinal caries are minimally invasive methods and are less painful and thus should be more frequently employed in pediatric dentistry.

show abstract

“…As the tip is not in contact with the tooth surface, this method of cavity preparation is much more agreeable to the patient [6][7][8]. In addition, many other studies have reported that lasers produce a mild local anesthetic effect, which allows for shallow cavity preparations to be completed without local analgesia [9,29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sight of a drill and a local anesthetic needle syringe, along with a high-pitched sound and high-frequency vibration of the dental turbine, are the significant sources for dental anxiety, which drive the expectation of dental pain [3][4][5]. Lasers have been shown to produce 400 times less vibration, than does a burr preparation [6], and achieve an improved patient experience, as evidenced by a number of pediatric studies. These findings were based upon a change to a more pleasant sound, less vibration, and to a certain degree, low-level laser therapy effect [7][8][9], which acts to provide a form of analgesia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of possible predictors for pain perception with class 1–5 cavity preparations using Er,Cr:YSGG laser: a retrospective clinical in vivo study

Polonsky¹,

Gutknecht²,

Franzen

2017

Laser Dent Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The study recorded 400 responses from 301 patients, aged 6-93, who all had carious lesions prepared with the erbium, chromium: yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) 2780-nm laser system. Different parameters, including gender, delivery method, power settings, tooth position, class type of cavity preparation, and patients' age, were compared and analyzed for possible predictive values in anticipating the patients' pain experience. Methods Class 1-5 cavity preparations were made using the Er,Cr:YSGG laser. All carious lesions fit ICDAS code 4-5 classifications. Power setting of 3.75 W was used for posterior teeth class 1-4 preparations and 2.5 W for all primary teeth, permanent anterior teeth, and all class 5 preparations. Nonanxious patients, who agreed to start cavity preparation without a local anesthetic, were instructed to stop the procedure and ask for an anesthetic injection, should they perceive a level of pain greater than their tolerance level. Anxious patients were not included in this study. Pain perception using the visual analog scale (VAS) along with the percentage of patients who needed a local anesthesia injection were recorded. The data was then analyzed using one-way ANOVA test, at significance level of α = 0.05, and Tukey pair-wise comparison, at 95% confidence interval. Results Eighty-five percent of cavity preparations were pain free; 15% of the preparations were found to have a degree of pain associated with them. However, only 6% requested a local anesthetic injection. There was no significant difference found between the two methods of delivery: gold handpiece (HP) vs. turbo HP. No significant differences were observed between males and females, regarding pain perception (13% vs. 18%, respectively). Posterior teeth were significantly more sensitive to laser cavity preparation, compared to anterior teeth, as indicated by the VAS pain scores (P value = 0.0001). Regarding anterior teeth, class 5 was significantly more sensitive to laser cavity preparations, when compared to class 1. In posterior teeth, there were no statistically significant differences between class 1 and 5, although pain perception was the most prevalent in class 2 preparations. Using higher-power settings (3.75 W vs. 2.5 W) for cavity preparation, the resulting pain response was significantly higher, as indicated by the VAS pain scores (P value = 0.0001). As the patients' age increases, the frequency of those experiencing pain decreases, with the exception of a sudden spike for the cohort aged 26-35, who proved to be the most sensitive to laser cavity preparation; this group was significantly different from all other age groups (P value = 0.0001). Conclusions The Er,Cr:YSGG laser system is an effective method for pain-free cavity preparations for 85% of the general patient population, who do not suffer from dental anxiety. Certain patient selection criteria, including age, power settings, and class type of cavity preparation, are important in achieving an overall positive and pain-free expedience.

show abstract

Basic study on vibrations during tooth preparations caused by high‐speed drilling and Er:YAG laser irradiation

Cited by 79 publications

References 15 publications

Effects of different types of adhesive systems on the microleakage of compomer restorations in Class V cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser in primary teeth

Effects of different types of adhesive systems on the microleakage of compomer restorations in Class V cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser in primary teeth

Clinical Evaluation of Caries Removal in Primary Teeth using Conventional, Chemomechanical and Laser Technique: An in vivo Study

Review of possible predictors for pain perception with class 1–5 cavity preparations using Er,Cr:YSGG laser: a retrospective clinical in vivo study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About