The Influence of Adhesive Systems on Microshear Bond Strength in Bur or Laser-Prepared Enamel

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the microshear bond strength(μSBS) of various adhesive systems on enamel surfaces prepared using either an Er, Cr:YSGG laser or a conventional diamond bur. Methods: Twenty-eight caries-free human molars were longitudinally sectioned, resulting in 56 samples. Buccal or lingual surfaces were embedded in acrylic blocks. Enamel surfaces were prepared using either an Er, Cr: YSGG laser (Biolase Technologies, USA) or a traditional diamond bur (Diatech, Switzerland), referencing the midline of each tooth. Laser treatment was applied to the left side, while the right half underwent bur treatment. The samples were randomly separated into four groups(n=14): [G1] Optibond FL (Kerr, USA), a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive; [G2] Clearfil SE Bond(Kuraray,Japan), a two-step self-etch adhesive; [G3]Prime&Bond Universal(Dentsply,USA),universal-adhesive/etch-and-rinse-mode; and [G4]Prime&Bond Universal(Dentsply,USA),universal-adhesive/self-etch-mode. Composite cylinders with a diameter of 0.8 mm (Harmonize, Kerr, USA) were affixed to the center of both the laser-prepared and bur-prepared regions of all specimens. The adhesive interface of one randomly chosen representative from each group was analyzed using a Scanning Electron Microscope(SEM). The remaining samples were subjected to μSBS testing. Data were analyzed statistically using Two-Way ANOVA(p0.05). Regardless of the preparation modalities, the adhesive systems did not exhibit any statistically significant differences(p>0.05). Furthermore, the correlation between various adhesive systems and preparation techniques did not result in statistically significant variations in μSBS values(p>0.05). Conclusion: The measured μSBS values of the adhesive systems examined on enamel surfaces prepared using either an Er, Cr:YSGG laser or a diamond bur showed similarity. Keywords: Laser preparation, Microshear bond strength, Scanning electron microscopy, Universal adhesive.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Selcuk Dental Journal
Published
2024-11-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1409751
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Influence of Adhesive Systems on Microshear Bond Strength in Bur or Laser-Prepared Enamel

Ece Meral, Alperen Oz, Esra Ergin, Mary Lake Polan
Selcuk Dental Journal
Dental materials and restorations
article

The Influence of Adhesive Systems on Microshear Bond Strength in Bur or Laser-Prepared Enamel

Ece Meral, Alperen Oz, Esra Ergin, Mary Lake Polan
article en

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the microshear bond strength(μSBS) of various adhesive systems on enamel surfaces prepared using either an Er, Cr:YSGG laser or a conventional diamond bur. Methods: Twenty-eight caries-free human molars were longitudinally sectioned, resulting in 56 samples. Buccal or lingual surfaces were embedded in acrylic blocks. Enamel surfaces were prepared using either an Er, Cr: YSGG laser (Biolase Technologies, USA) or a traditional diamond bur (Diatech, Switzerland), referencing the midline of each tooth. Laser treatment was applied to the left side, while the right half underwent bur treatment. The samples were randomly separated into four groups(n=14): [G1] Optibond FL (Kerr, USA), a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive; [G2] Clearfil SE Bond(Kuraray,Japan), a two-step self-etch adhesive; [G3]Prime&Bond Universal(Dentsply,USA),universal-adhesive/etch-and-rinse-mode; and [G4]Prime&Bond Universal(Dentsply,USA),universal-adhesive/self-etch-mode. Composite cylinders with a diameter of 0.8 mm (Harmonize, Kerr, USA) were affixed to the center of both the laser-prepared and bur-prepared regions of all specimens. The adhesive interface of one randomly chosen representative from each group was analyzed using a Scanning Electron Microscope(SEM). The remaining samples were subjected to μSBS testing. Data were analyzed statistically using Two-Way ANOVA(p0.05). Regardless of the preparation modalities, the adhesive systems did not exhibit any statistically significant differences(p>0.05). Furthermore, the correlation between various adhesive systems and preparation techniques did not result in statistically significant variations in μSBS values(p>0.05). Conclusion: The measured μSBS values of the adhesive systems examined on enamel surfaces prepared using either an Er, Cr:YSGG laser or a diamond bur showed similarity. Keywords: Laser preparation, Microshear bond strength, Scanning electron microscopy, Universal adhesive.

Selcuk Dental JournalVol. 11(3)
İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi, Hacettepe University (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.