PubMed · 4916388
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1970. [Gingival retraction].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4916388/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate morphologically the dental hard tissue ablation at the class V cavity preparation by two types of laser devices: Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers in vitro. BACKGROUND DATA: There have been no reports on the comparative study of dental tissue ablation at cavity preparation by Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers. METHODS: Twenty-two extracted human mature molar teeth were used in this study and divided into two groups of 11 teeth each. The teeth of the Er:YAG laser-irradiated group were irradiated at the parameters of 250 mJ/pulse and 15 Hz with water spray, and those of the Er,Cr:YSGG laserirradiated group were irradiated at the parameters of 5 Wand 20 Hz with water spray. After cavity preparation, the teeth were dehydrated, coated with platinum, and examined by scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: Both of the laser devices were capable of ablating dental hard tissues, but similar, irregular, and rugged surface aspects with different depths were observed. Open dentinal tubules at the cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser were more clearly visible than those prepared by Er:YAG laser. Smaller width and stripped surfaces were observed on the cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser. CONCLUSION: The results suggested that there is little difference between the two types of lasers-Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers-morphologically for class V cavity preparation, because both lasers were capable of preparing class V cavities, and the morphological features of the irradiated surfaces were very similar.
BACKGROUND: The authors tested the clinical longevity of disposable diamond burs. They cut a series of five preparations and assessed the leakage after restoring the tooth. METHODS: The authors prepared 10 teeth for Class V restorations, and used a new disposable diamond bur for each tooth. The burs were used to cut preparations in extra teeth before being used to prepare a second series of 10 teeth (third use). The authors then cut preparations in extra teeth before preparing a third set of 10 teeth (fifth use). They removed existing restorations in a second group of 30 teeth and extended the preparations using the same regimen of one, three and five bur uses. All preparations were etched and conditioned, and the teeth were restored with resin-based composite. Using a 20-volt direct-current power source and a stainless-steel counter electrode, the authors measured the leakage electrochemically in 1.0 percent sodium chloride for 30 days. RESULTS: Freshly prepared and restored teeth leaked less than reprepared teeth. Leakage was similar for the first and third uses of the bur, but was far greater for the fifth use (P < .01). The previously restored teeth that were cut with the first- and third-use burs behaved the same, but the third-use bur caused more leakage than the fifth-use bur (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Reuse of disposable burs can affect leakage behavior. With new preparations, use of a disposable bur to cut more than three preparations increased leakage. For teeth that were reprepared and restored, greater leakage occurred than it did with new preparations, although repeated use of a bur may reduce leakage. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Disposable diamond burs may cut preparations in up to three teeth before adversely affecting leakage behavior. Restoration removal and repreparation of teeth results in greater leakage than that with freshly prepared teeth.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of an Er:YAG laser (2960nm) to prepare class V cavities as compared with rotary instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six freshly extracted human molars were selected and randomly distributed in two groups. Non standardized class V cavities were prepared using (group 1) a diamond bur for enamel, plus a tungsten bur for dentin with water irrigation and (group 2) an Er:YAG laser (output parameters, enamel: 1000 mJ, 12Hz, dentin: 500 mJ, 20Hz) with a continuous flow of water. RESULTS: The SEM examination revealed characteristic micro-irregularities of the lased samples as compared with the conventional prepared cavities: group 1, the walls of the cavities were slightly curved and a smear layer plus muds covered peripheric walls as well as the depth of the cavity; rare dentinal tubules were opened; linear and circular surface irregularities were observed on the dentin; and group 2, the walls of the cavities were irregular, jagged; photo-ablation creates a real cleavage of hydroxyapatite prisms with respect to the enamel prism pathway; an homogeneous dentin with opened dentinal tubules covered the depth of the cavities; intertubular dentin is selectively more ablated than Er-YAG the peritubular dentin. CONCLUSIONS: Jagged outline as well as opened dentinal tubules are the main characteristics of the Er-YAG prepared class V cavities. Further investigations (ulstrastructural, histochemical properties of the lased dentin, resistance to traction of bonded resins) should be conducted.