The Use of the Er:YAG Laser for Bracket Debonding and Its Effect on Enamel Damage

Dostálová, Taťjána; Jelı́nková, Helena; Remeš, Marek; Šulc, Jan; Němec, Michal

doi:10.1089/pho.2016.4115

Cited by 30 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, Er:YAG lasers are commonly used to remove caries and treat the surfaces of restorative materials . Likewise, Er:YAG lasers have also been used to debond ceramic brackets . Studies have proposed that Er:YAG lasers light be transmitted through the ceramic brackets and be selectively absorbed by water molecules and residual monomers in the resin cements, resulting in reduced bond strengths and ceramic brackets debonding from the teeth surfaces.…”

Section: Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…[21][22][23] Likewise, Er:YAG lasers have also been used to debond ceramic brackets. 24,25 Studies 26,27 have proposed that Er:YAG lasers light be transmitted through the ceramic brackets and be selectively absorbed by water molecules and residual monomers in the resin cements, resulting in reduced bond strengths and ceramic brackets debonding from the teeth surfaces. Based in these mechanisms, the first report regarding the use of erbium laser in the removal of FDPs appeared nearly a decade ago.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laser‐assisted removal of all ceramic fixed dental prostheses: A comprehensive review

Kellesarian

Malignaggi

Aldosary

et al. 2017

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefits of lasers over mechanical instrumentation for crown removal encompass efficient restoration retrievability without restoration or teeth surfaces damages; and relatively easier and time effective procedure with no prerequisite for anesthetic agents. It is however imperative for clinicians to be well-trained and exhibit adequate knowledge regarding recommended power settings and laser-safety parameters with reference to interactions between light and different tissues and ceramics.

show abstract

Section: Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Laser‐assisted removal of all ceramic fixed dental prostheses: A comprehensive review

Kellesarian

Malignaggi

Aldosary

et al. 2017

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Erbium–yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser has been used to assist in the removal of orthodontic brackets, porcelain veneers, and all‐ceramic crowns from natural teeth as well as all‐ceramic crowns from titanium implant abutments . The Er:YAG laser energy at 2940 nm wavelength targets and activates the monomer and water molecules resulting in debonding of composite resin cements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval of Glass Fiber Post Using Er:YAG Laser and Conventional Endodontic Ultrasonic Method: An In Vitro Study

Deeb

Grzech‐Leśniak

Weaver

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To compare the times and temperatures used to remove a glass fiber post from an endodontically treated tooth using erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) compared to conventional endodontic ultrasonic method. Materials and Methods: Thirty-four single-root human extracted teeth were endodontically treated ex vivo. The post space was prepared to 7 mm in depth and a 11.4 mm glass fiber post was cemented using composite resin cement. Specimens were kept in 100% humidity for 24 hours and then randomly assigned to Er:YAG laser or ultrasonic methods for post removal. The removal time was recorded. Specimens with a fractured post during the removal process were excluded. The temperature on the external surface of the root was measured at the coronal, middle, and apical third portions during the laser or ultrasonic applications from 1 to 10 minutes. Data were analyzed using one-tailed t-test and paired t-test (ɑ = 0.01) for the post removal time and temperature difference, respectively. The specimen surfaces were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).Results: Fifteen specimens were tested in each group. Four specimens were fractured, 2 in the laser and 1 in ultrasonic group. One post was excluded because of laser tip damage. The average removal time were 98 ± 46.1 seconds for Er:YAG laser and 538 ± 215.6 seconds or ultrasonic groups with significant difference between the groups (p < 0.001). The temperature (°C) ranges measured from 1 to 10 minutes were [24.2°, 27.3°] for laser and [33.0°, 38.0°] for ultrasonic in the cervical area, [22.1°,24.6°] for laser and [31.0°, 34.6°] for ultrasonic in the middle area, and [24.4°, 27.7°] for laser and [30.3°, 34.1°] for ultrasonic in the apical area. There were significant differences between temperatures for each treatment (p < 0.001). SEM examination showed no visible damage caused by treatment with Er:YAG laser. Conclusions: Er:YAG laser can remove posts up to 5 times faster than ultrasonic removal method. The laser causes lower temperature increase at the root surface compared to the ultrasonic removal. Er:YAG may be considered as a viable alternative to sonication for post removal.Endodontically treated teeth are often restored with post and core prior to crown or fixed restoration fabrication. Glass fiber posts have been used for over 2 decades with their annual survival rate of ß95%. 1 Glass fiber posts exhibit high flexural strength to maintain the core materials, but also elastic modululus values similar to dentin. 2-4 These mechanical properties promise the reduction in tooth fracture. 1-4 At the same time, the material translucency enhances esthetics. 5,6 The mechanical properties and retention of glass fiber posts can be further enhanced with the recently developed self-adhesive composite resin. 7,8 The application of adhesive cement may extend the longevity of an endodontically treated tooth with a glass fiber

show abstract

“…5 The multi -blade tungsten carbide rotatory bur can rapidly remove remaining composite adhesive adhered to enamel although that can destroy the outer enamel layer and increase the roughness. 4,5,18 The hardness, shape and speed of the rotatory blades of the tungsten carbide burs play a significant role on the damage of the enamel surfaces. 17 Tungsten carbide rotatory burs, at low speed, can result in a pattern of finer scars followed by less loosening of enamel, when compared to carbide drills tungsten at high speed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1][2][3] That contribute for a opaque feature of the teeth as well as for acumulation of oral biofilm, leading to gingival irritation and an increase of stains on the enamel surface. 4,5 In the case of composite adhesive remain on enamel surface, the tooth surfaces reveal a high tendency to staining and accumulation of oral biofilms. 6 The bond strength at the bracket -adhesive -tooth interface must withstand forces during oral movements although that strength magnitude should allow the removal of the brackets avoiding fractures in the enamel.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Damage on tooth enamel after removal of orthodontic adhesive by Arkansas’ stone and tungsten carbide burs

Pinho¹,

Pinto²,

Mesquita³

et al. 2017

j.rpemd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oObjectives: The main aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two different methods to remove orthodontic composite adhesives from enamel concerning the surface damage and remnant composite adhesive on the surfaces. Methods:Human molars were stored in buffer solution at room temperature before bonding the brackets. Teeth were ultrasonically cleaned in distilled water before bonding procedure.Ninety two brackets were randomly bonded to the buccal surface of twenty three molars using a composite-based adhesive system. After 15 days, the orthodontic composite adhesives were removed by using Arkansas' stone or multi-blade tungsten burs. After debonding process, the remnant composite adhered to the tooth as well as the teeth surfaces were analyzed by photographic images at x40 magnification concerning the (ARI) adhesive remnant or (SRI) surface roughness index. Also, enamel surfaces were inspected by field emission guns scanning electron microscopy (FEGSEM) before bonding and after bracket detachment.The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS ® Statistics vs.18.0, considering a significance level of 0.05 to one-way ANOVA. Tukey's test was used for multiple comparisons and Chi-square tests were used to analyze the association between categorical variables.Results: ARI results revealed no statistically significant differences between the two methods of bracket removal (p=0.283). Considering SRI, statistically significant differences were detected between the two procedures (p<0.001) considering all worn surfaces revealed lower surface roughness after removal of adhesive by Arkansas stone than that recorded on worn surfaces after removal using tungsten carbide burs. Conclusion:The removal of orthodontic adhesive promoted less damage on enamel surfaces by using Arkansas stone at low rotation. Nevertheless, finishing procedures can decrease the roughness on enamel without additional damage. Conclusão: Menor dano ao esmalte foi promovido pela remoção de adesivo ortodóntico com uso da pedra de Arkansas. Entretanto, polimento adicional diminui a rugosidade da superfície sem danos adicionais ao esmalte.

show abstract

The Use of the Er:YAG Laser for Bracket Debonding and Its Effect on Enamel Damage

Abstract: Irradiation with Er:YAG laser radiation before debonding of ceramic brackets significantly decreases the bonding failure and amount of remaining adhesive.

Cited by 30 publications

References 28 publications

Laser‐assisted removal of all ceramic fixed dental prostheses: A comprehensive review

Laser‐assisted removal of all ceramic fixed dental prostheses: A comprehensive review

Retrieval of Glass Fiber Post Using Er:YAG Laser and Conventional Endodontic Ultrasonic Method: An In Vitro Study

Damage on tooth enamel after removal of orthodontic adhesive by Arkansas’ stone and tungsten carbide burs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About