Advertisement

Lasers in Dental Science

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 199–207 | Cite as

Comparison of Er:YAG laser and acid etching methods prior to lingual retainer application in vitro

  • Merve Kurt BiyikliogluEmail author
  • Berza Yilmaz
Original Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to compare the bond strength, fracture type, and the amount of microleakage related to lingual retainers bonded on enamel surface etched with either Erbium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Er:YAG) laser or acid etching methods.

Methods

The enamel of extracted 132 upper incisor teeth was etched using either 37% phosphoric acid or Er:YAG laser (Fotona Light Walker H02-N 2940 nm, 120 mJ, 10 Hz, 1.2 W in MSP mode). Teeth were embedded in acrylic as two teeth in each sample with 135° angulation and retainer wires were bonded on the lingual surface of the samples. Two-year aging protocol was applied using a chewing simulator and a thermal cycler. Shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and microleakage were measured.

Results

SBS and microleakage data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test and ARI scores using the Pearson chi-square test. The SBS was found significantly higher in the acid-etched group. There was no statistically significant difference in the total microleakage means between groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the microleakage between the enamel-adhesive and adhesive-retainer interfaces for the mesial and distal sides. Higher microleakage values were measured between the enamel and the adhesive surfaces compared to adhesive-retainer interface for both groups.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of our study, acid etching promises better bond strength for lingual retainers compared to Er:YAG laser etching. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of microleakage.

Keywords

Er:YAG laser Acid etch Lingual retainer Microleakage Bond strength 

Notes

Funding information

This study was supported by Bezmialem Vakif University Scientific Research Projects Unit with the project number 1.2017/7.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved and followed by Non-Invasive Research Ethics Committee of Bezmialem Vakif University.

References

  1. 1.
    Fowler BO, Kuroda S (1986) Changes in heated and in laser-irradiated human tooth enamel and their probable effects on solubility. Calcif Tissue Int 38:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keller U, Hibst R (1990) Ultrastructural changes of enamel and dentin following Er:YAG laser radiation on teeth. OE/LASE'90, 14–19 Jan, 408–415Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lai C, Grossen J, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Fudalej P, Katsaros C (2014) Orthodontic retention procedures in Switzerland. Swiss Dent J 124:655–661Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taylor MJ, Lynch E (1992) Microleakage. J Dent 20:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kidd EA (1976) Microleakage in relation to amalgam and composite restorations. A laboratory study. Br Dent J 141:305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Going RE (1972) Microleakage around dental restorations: a summarizing review. J Am Dent Assoc 84:1349–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alani AH, Toh CG (1997) Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent 22:173–185Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lüscher B, Lutz F, Ochsenbein H, Mühleman H (1978) Microleakage and marginal adaptation of composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 39:409–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nimbalkar-Patil S, Vaz A, Patil P (2014) Comparative evaluation of microleakage of lingual retainer wires bonded with three different lingual retainer composites: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 8(11):83–87Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bulut A, Atsu S (2016) Aging procedures of dental restorative materials and chewing simulator. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni 26:180–186Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Veli I, Akın M, Kucukyılmaz E, Uysal T (2014) Shear bond strength of a self-adhering flowable composite when used for lingual retainer bonding. J Orofac Orthop 75:374–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Årtun J, Bergland S (1984) Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 85:333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Osorio R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F (1999) Bracket bonding with 15 or 60 second etching and adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding. Angle Orthod 69:45–48Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitchell L (1992) Decalcification during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances--an overview. Br J Orthod 19:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ (1982) Incidence of white spot formation after bonding and banding. Am J Orthod 81:93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ogaard B (1989) Prevalence of white spot lesions in 19-year-olds: a study on untreated and orthodontically treated persons 5 years after treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 96:423–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Usumez S, Orhan M, Usumez A (2002) Laser etching of enamel for direct bonding with an Er,Cr:YSGG hydrokinetic laser system. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 122:649–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee BS, Hsieh TT, Lee YL, Lan WH, Hsu YJ, Wen PH (2003) Bond strengths of orthodontic bracket after acid-etched, Er:YAG laser-irradiated and combined treatment on enamel surface. Angle Orthod 73:565–570Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moshonov J, Stabholz A, Zyskind D, Sharlin E, Peretz B (2005) Acid-etched and erbium:yttrium aluminium garnet laser-treated enamel for fissure sealants: a comparison of microleakage. Int J Paediatr Dent 15:205–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miresmaeili A, Farhadian N, Rezaei-soufi L, Saharkhizan M, Veisi M (2014) Effect of carbon dioxide laser irradiation on enamel surface microhardness around orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hamamci N, Akkurt A, Basaran G (2010) In vitro evaluation of microleakage under orthodontic brackets using two different laser etching, self etching and acid etching methods. Lasers Med Sci 25:811–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lorenzo MC, Portillo M, Moreno P, Montero J, Garcia A, Santos-del Riego SE (2015) Ultrashort pulsed laser conditioning of human enamel: in vitro study of the influence of geometrical processing parameters on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Lasers Med Sci 30:891–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sagir S, Usumez A, Ademci E, Usumez S (2013) Effect of enamel laser irradiation at different pulse settings on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 83:973–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berk N, Basaran G, Ozer T (2008) Comparison of sandblasting, laser irradiation, and conventional acid etching for orthodontic bonding of molar tubes. Eur J Orthod 30:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martinez-Insua A, Da Silva Dominguez L, Rivera FG, Santana-Penin UA (2000) Differences in bonding to acid-etched or Er:YAG-laser-treated enamel and dentin surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 84:280–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Usumez S, Malkoc S (2000) Er,Cr,:YSGG hidrokinetik laser sistemiyle mine pürüzlendirilmesinin ortodontik apareylerin yapışma kuvvetine etkisı̇. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Dişhekimliği FakÜltesi Dergisi 3:6–8Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cehreli SB, Gungor HC, Karabulut E (2006) Er,Cr:YSGG laser pretreatment of primary teeth for bonded fissure sealant application: a quantitative microleakage study. J Adhes Dent 8:381–386Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Borsatto MC, Corona SA, Ramos RP, Liporaci JL, Pecora JD, Palma-Dibb RG (2004) Microleakage at sealant/enamel interface of primary teeth: effect of Er:YAG laser ablation of pits and fissures. J Dent Child (Chic) 71:143–147Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vandevska-Radunovic V, Espeland L, Stenvik A (2013) Retention: type, duration and need for common guidelines. A survey of Norwegian orthodontists. Orthodontics 14:2–9Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Gueth JF, Edelhoff D, Naumann M (2012) In vitro performance of full-contour zirconia single crowns. Dent Mater 28:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heydecke G, Zhang F, Razzoog ME (2001) In vitro color stability of double-layer veneers after accelerated aging. J Prosthet Dent 85:551–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kheradmandan S, Koutayas SO, Bernhard M, Strub JR (2001) Fracture strength of four different types of anterior 3-unit bridges after thermo-mechanical fatigue in the dual-axis chewing simulator. J Oral Rehabil 28:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Begazo CC, de Boer HD, Kleverlaan CJ, van Waas MA, Feilzer AJ (2004) Shear bond strength of different types of luting cements to an aluminum oxide-reinforced glass ceramic core material. Dent Mater 20:901–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Clausen JO, Tara MA, Kern M (2010) Dynamic fatigue and fracture resistance of non-retentive all-ceramic full-coverage molar restorations. Influence of ceramic material and preparation design. Dent Mater 26:533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Toodehzaeim MH, Yassaei S, Taherimoghadam S (2015) Comparison of microleakage under rebonded stainless steel orthodontic brackets using two methods of adhesive removal: sandblast and laser. J Dent (Tehran) 12:118–124Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Arhun N, Arman A, Cehreli SB, Arikan S, Karabulut E, Gulsahi K (2006) Microleakage beneath ceramic and metal brackets bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial adhesive system. Angle Orthod 76:1028–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Uysal T, Ulker M, Baysal A, Usumez S (2008) Different lingual retainer composites and the microleakage between enamel-composite and wire-composite interfaces. Angle Orthod 78:941–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Al Shamsi A, Cunningham J, Lamey P, Lynch E (2006) Shear bond strength and residual adhesive after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 76:694–699Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Linn BJ, Berzins DW, Dhuru VB, Bradley TG (2006) A comparison of bond strength between direct-and indirect-bonding methods. Angle Orthod 76:289–294Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hosseini M, Namvar F, Chalipa J, Saber K, Chiniforush N, Sarmadi S, Mirhashemi AH (2012) Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel prepared by Er:YAG laser and conventional acid-etching. J Dent (Tehran) 9:20–26Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reynolds I (1975) A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 2:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthodontics, School of DentistryBezmialem Vakif UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations