Advertisement

Evaluation of rebonding strengths of leucite and lithium disilicate veneers debonded with an Er:YAG laser

  • Merve Karagoz-Yildirak
  • Rifat GozneliEmail author
Original Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Resin cements create a high bond between the tooth and ceramic surfaces, thus making it impossible to remove the restoration in one piece. The aims of this study were to evaluate (i) the efficiency of an Er:YAG laser for debonding, and (ii) the changes in the rebonding strength values of all-ceramic veneers, which were removed after laser application. A tooth reduction of 120 extracted human maxillary central incisors was made to provide two different bonding surfaces (60 enamel and 60 dentin). Sixty leucite and 60 lithium disilicate discs (1-mm thickness, 5-mm diameter) were cemented to prepared surfaces with a dual-cure resin cement. Each group was divided into two subgroups (n = 15): control and laser-irradiated. Er:YAG laser (2940 nm) was applied for 9 s at 3 W power (10 Hz, 300 mJ) with 100 μs pulse duration. Shear bond strength (SBS) test was made with a universal testing machine. After the tested laser-irradiated specimens had been rebonded, the SBS test was performed again and rebonding strengths were measured. The statistical evaluations were performed by using repeated measures one-way ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni tests (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found between the control and laser-irradiated groups (p < 0.001). While the required SBS values for control groups were between 30.04 and 24.66 MPa, the values for laser-irradiated groups were between 6.60 and 4.09 MPa. There was no significant difference between the control and rebonded groups. Er:YAG laser-irradiation is an effective method for removing all-ceramic restorations without affecting the rebonding strength.

Keywords

All-ceramic Debonding Er:YAG laser Rebonding Shear bond strength 

Notes

Funding information

This study was supported in part by a research grant from the Scientific Research Projects Committee of Marmara University, Istanbul (Project no. SAG-C-DUP-170118-0004).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

This article only contains a study with test samples prepared by using extracted human maxillary central incisors that were previously extracted for periodontal reasons.

Although no human participants or animals performed, this study was approved by the university human research ethics committee and all procedures performed in studies (involving human participants) were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Fabbri G, Zarone F, Dellificorelli G, Cannistraro G, De Lorenzi M, Mosca A, Sorrentino R (2014) Clinical evaluation of 860 anterior and posterior lithium disilicate restorations: retrospective study with a mean follow-up of 3 years and a maximum observational period of 6 years. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 34:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gehrt M, Wolfart S, Rafai N, Reich S, Edelhoff D (2013) Clinical results of lithium-disilicate crowns after up to 9 years of service. Clin Oral Investig 17:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Silva NS, Bonfante EA (2015) New Classication system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont 28:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2000) Porcelain veneers: a review of the literature. J Dent 28:163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oztoprak MO, Tozlu M, Iseri U, Ulkur F, Arun T (2012) Effects of different application durations of scanning laser method on debonding strength of laminate veneers. Lasers Med Sci 27:713–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van As G (2013) Using the erbium laser to remove porcelain veneers in 60 seconds. J Cosmetic Dent 28:20–34Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kellesarian SV, Malignaggi VR, Aldosary KM (2017) Laser assisted removal of all ceramic fixed dental prostheses: a comprehensive review. J Esthet Restor Dent 30:216–222.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Whitehead SA, Aya A, Macfarlane TV, Watts DC, Wilson NH (2000) Removal of porcelain veneers aided by a fluorescing luting cement. J Esthet Dent 12:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rechmann P, Buu NC, Rechmann BM, Finzen FC (2014) Laser all-ceramic crown removal-a laboratory proof-of-principle study-phase 2 crown debonding time. Lasers Surg Med 46:636–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sari T, Tuncel I, Usumez A, Gutknecht N (2014) Transmission of Er: YAG laser through different dental ceramics. Photomed Laser Surg 32:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Strobl K, Bahns TL, Willham L, Bishara SE, Stwalley WC (1992) Laser-aided debond- ing of orthodontic ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 101:152–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ma T, Marangoni RD, Flint W (1997) In vitro comparison of debonding force and intrapulpal temperature changes during ceramic orthodontic bracket removal using a carbon dioxide laser. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 111:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tocchio RM, Williams PT, Mayer FJ, Standing KG (1993) Laser debonding of ceramic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 103:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feldon PJ, Murray PE, Burch JJ, Meister M, Freedman MA (2010) Diode laser debonding of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 138:458–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sarp AS, Gulsoy M (2011) Ceramic bracket debonding with ytterbium fiber laser. Lasers Med Sci 26:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mundethu AR, Gutknecht N, Franzen R (2014) Rapid debonding of polycrystalline ceramic orthodontic brackets with an Er:YAG laser: an in vitro study. Lasers Med Sci 29:1551–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morford CK, Buu NC, Rechmann BM, Finzen FC, Sharma AB, Rechmann P (2011) Er:YAG laser debonding of porcelain veneers. Lasers Surg Med 43:965–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albalkhi M, Swed E, Hamadah O (2018) Efficiency of Er:YAG laser in debonding of porcelain laminate veneers by contact and non-contact laser application modes (in vitro study). J Esthet Restor Dent 30:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bulut AC, Atsu SS (2017) The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of different resin cements to enamel and dentin. J Adv Prosthodont 9:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gurney ML, Sharples SD, Phillips WB, Lee DJ (2016) Using an Er, Cr: YSGG laser to remove lithium disilicate restorations: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 115:90–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iseri U, Oztoprak MO, Ozkurt Z (2014) Effect of Er:YAG laser on debonding strength of laminate veneers. Eur J Dent 8:58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Broome PJ (2007) Utilization of an Er, Cr:YSGG laser for the removal of all-ceramic restorations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 19:23–25Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cranska JP (2015) Laser removal of all-ceramic restorations. Solving a difficult clinical challenge. Dent Today 34:110–113Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cranska JP (2013) Removing all-ceramic restorations with lasers. Dent Today 32(101–102):104Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spath A, Smith C (2017) Removal of modern ceramics. Compend Contin Educ Dent 38:326–233Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van As G (2012) Laser removal of porcelain veneers. Dent Today 31:84 86, 88-9Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kursoglu P, Gursoy H (2013) Removal of fractured laminate veneers with Er:YAG laser: report of two cases. Photomed Laser Surg 31:41–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tehranchi A, Fekrazad R, Zafar M, Eslami B, Kalhori KM, Gutknecht N (2011) Evaluation of the effects of CO2 laser on debonding of orthodontics porcelain brackets vs. the conventional method. Lasers Med Sci 26:563–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Elkamhawy NH, Elkadi AS, Alabbassy FH (2016) Shear bond strength of ceramic laminate veneers to enamel and enamel-dentine complex bonded with different adhesive luting systems. Alex Dent J 41:131–137Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mak YF, Lai SC, Cheung GS, Chan AW, Tay FR, Pashley DH (2002) Micro-tensile bond testing of resin cements to dentine and an indirect resin composite. Dent Mater 18:609–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang Y, Rocca J, Fornaini C, Zhen Y, Zhao Z, Merigo E (2018) Er:YAG laser debonding of porcelain laminate veneers. Preprints 2018060086.  https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201806.0086.v1
  32. 32.
    Rechmann P, Buu NC, Rechmann BM, Finzen FC (2015) Laser all-ceramic crown removal and pulpal temperature–a laboratory proof-of- principle study. Lasers Med Sci 30:2087–2093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nalbantgil D, Oztoprak MO, Tozlu M, Arun T (2011) Effects of different application durations of Er:YAG laser on intrapulpal temperature change during debonding. Lasers Med Sci 26:735–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ozturk E, Bolay S, Hickel R, Ilie N (2013) Shear bond strength of porcelain laminate veneers to enamel, dentine and enamel–dentine complex bonded with different adhesive luting systems. J Dent 41:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bishara SE, Von Wald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ (2000) The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of a composite resin orthodontic adhesive. Angle Orthod 70:435–441Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Montasser MA, Drummond JL, Evans CA (2008) Rebonding of orthodontic brackets. Part I, a laboratory and clinical study. Angle Orthod 78:531–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Koodaryan R, Hafezegoran A, Khakpour Maleki A (2017) The effect of resin cement type and cleaning method on the shear bond strength of resin cements for recementing restorations. J Adv Prosthodont 9:110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sol E, Espasa E, Boj JR, Canalda C (2000) Effect of different prophylaxis methods on sealant adhesion. J Clin Pediatr Dent 24:211–214Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Blixt M, Adamczak E, Lindén LA, Odén A, Arvidson K (2000) Bonding to densely sintered alumina surfaces: effect of sandblasting and silica coating on shear bond strength of luting cements. Int J Prosthodont 13:221–226Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Calamia JR, Calamia CS (2007) Porcelain laminate veneers: reasons for 25 years of success. Dent Clin N Am 51:399–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chen TM, Brauer GM (1982) Solvent effects on bonding organo-silane to silica surfaces. J Dent Res 61:1439–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Román-Rodríguez JL, Alonso-Pérez-Barquero J, Bruguera-Álvarez A, Agustín-Panadero R, Fons-Font A (2015) Cleaning and retreatment protocol for a debonded ceramic restoration. J Clin Exp Dent 7:e60–e62.  https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.51891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    St Germain HA Jr, St Germain TH (2015) Shear bond strength of porcelain veneers rebonded to enamel. Oper Dent 40:E112–E121.  https://doi.org/10.2341/14-123-L CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Azzeh E, Feldon PJ (2003) Laser debonding of ceramic brackets: a comprehensive review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 123:79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gozneli R, Kazazoglu E, Ozkan Y (2014) Flexural properties of leucite and lithium disilicate ceramic materials after repeated firings. J Dent Sci 9:144–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of DentistryMarmara UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of DentistryMarmara UniversityMaltepeTurkey

Personalised recommendations