RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Considering the importance of disinfecting dentin after cavity preparation and the possible effect of disinfection methods on induction of various reactions between the tooth structure and the adhesive restorative material, the aim of the present study was to evaluate microleakage of composite resin restorations after disinfecting the prepared dentin surface with Nd:YAG and Diode lasers and photodynamic therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standard Class V cavities were prepared on buccal surfaces of 96 sound bovine teeth. The samples were randomly divided into 4 groups based on the disinfection method: Group 1: Nd:YAG laser; Group 2: Diode laser; Group 3: photodynamic therapy; and Group 4: the control. Self-etch bonding agent (Clearfil SE Bond) was applied and all the cavities were restored with composite resin (Z100). After thermocycling and immersing in 0.5% basic fuchsin, the samples were prepared for microleakage evaluation under a stereomicroscope. Data was analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests at P<0.05. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the microleakage of occlusal and gingival margins between the study groups (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in microleakage between the occlusal and gingival margins in the Nd:YAG laser group (P>0.05). In the other groups, microleakage at gingival margins was significantly higher than that at the occlusal margins (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Nd:YAG and Diode lasers and photodynamic therapy can be used to disinfect cavity preparations before composite resin restorations.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study was aimed at evaluating the effect of different prophylaxis methods on microleak-age of microfilled composite restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro study, class V cavities were prepared on buccal surfaces of 84 bovine teeth. The teeth were restored with Tetric N-Bond adhesive and Heliomolar composite resin. Subsequent to a thermocycling procedure and three months of storage in distilled water, the teeth were randomly assigned to four groups (n=21): (1) prophylaxis with a rubber cup and pumice; (2) prophylaxis with a brush and pumice; (3) prophylaxis with air/powder polishing device; and (4) no prophylaxis (the control group). Then the teeth were immersed in 2% basic fuchsin for 24 hours and sectioned for microleakage evaluation under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed Rankstests. Statistical significance was defined at p<0.05. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in occlusal and gingival microleakage between the groups (p=0.996 and p=0.860, respectively). In all the groups gingival margins exhibited significantly higher microleakage values compared to occlusal margins (p<0.0005). CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis methods had no adverse effect on marginal leakage of microfilled composite resin restorations.