Microleakage of repaired class V silorane and nano-hybrid composite restorations after preparation with erbium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser and diamond bur

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the microleakage of repaired class V resin composite restorations prepared either by Er:YAG laser or a diamond bur. Ninety-six intact human molar teeth were randomly distributed into eight groups. In the first four groups, class V cavities (3 × 3 × 3 mm) prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of the teeth using an erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser (VersaWave, HOYA ConBio, Japan). Similar class V cavities were prepared in the second four groups using a diamond bur (S-Class, Komet, UK). Teeth in groups 1, 2, and 5, 6 were restored with a nano-ceramic composite (Ceram.X duo, DENTSPLY), whereas a silorane material (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) was used to restore cavities in groups 3, 4, and 7, 8. Two different adhesive systems (XP Bond, DENTSPLY, and Silorane System Adhesive, 3M ESPE) were also used. All specimens were aged for 7 days. New cavities (3 × 3 × 3 mm) were prepared adjacent to the old restorations with Er:YAG laser (groups I-IV) or diamond bur (groups V-VIII). Different repair materials were then applied to the new cavities using the previous two restorative materials and two adhesive systems. All teeth were subjected to thermocycling (5,000 cycles between 5 and 55°C) and axial loadcycling (30 N, 1 Hz, 2,000 cycles). Specimens were immersed in 50% w/w silver nitrate solution. Teeth were sectioned longitudinally in buccolingual direction. Stereomicroscope (Nikon SMZ 800) and SEM (JEOL JSM 5600) were used to evaluate the microleakage that existed at the interface between the old restorations and the repair materials. Data were analyzed statistically with one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05). Even though no statistically significant differences were found between any of the groups, the cavities repaired with different restoratives showed slight microleakage, especially those prepared by Er:YAG laser (p > 0.05). No microleakage scores were obtained in the groups repaired with Filtek Silorane/Filtek Silorane and Ceram.X/Ceram.X. All the substances tested can be used as repair materials for immediate repair after Er:YAG laser and diamond bur. All substances tested in this study can be used as immediate repair materials after cavity preparations with Er:YAG laser or diamond bur.

Effect of thermocycling on the bond strength of composite resin to bur and laser treated composite resin

“…However, fractures and failures of composite restorations can still occur because of secondary caries and marginal defects [1,2].…”

“…In laboratory studies, aging of composite resins has been simulated by different methods, including storage in water [6,13], citric acid immersion [9,19], and thermocycling [1,2,9,19]. Thermal cycle is frequently utilized in composite repair tests for aging composite resins.…”

Two-Year Interfacial Bond Durability and Nanoleakage of Repaired Silorane-Based Resin Composite

“…[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The effect of intermediate adhesive agent/repair composite, 5,8 the impact of surface preparation, 7,9,11 or both 6,10 on silorane-based composite repair was tested. In these studies, some researchers tested the ability of methacrylate-based adhesive/composite to repair silorane restorations.…”

Effect of the superficial treatment in the repair of silorane-based composite aged artificially

“…Resistência à tração. The repair os silorane-based composite aged articially Although silorane-based composite repair has been investigated in recent studies [11][12]16 , most of these studies did not submit the restoration to aging before repair [10][11]14,16,21 . In literature, there are only a few studies that aged the specimens before the repair and the period of aging in these articles was relatively short, ranging from 3 days to 6 months [12][13]18 .…”

“…The repair is considered a more conservative treatment, for avoiding the enlargement of the cavity preparation and loss of sound dental structure, in addition to be a low cost procedure, require less clinical time and avoid injuries to the pulp tissue [6][7][8][9] . Different surface treatments have been suggested to increase the mechanical retention, and consequently the bond strength of the repairs, such as diamond bur abrasion [10][11][12] , abrasion with sandpapers 13 and sandblasting with aluminum oxide or silica particles 12,[14][15] . Bonding agents as adhesives, low viscosity composites and silane can also improve the adaptation of a new resin increment to the asperized surface 11,[13][14][16][17][18] .…”