Microtensile bond strengths of Class V restorations after conventional and laser preparation and SEM analysis of resin-dentin interface

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the bond strengths of Class V cavities preparedby laser treatment or conventional methods and restored with different adhesive systems.Materials and Methods: Fourty-eight premolars were randomly divided into two groups. Infirst group, cavities were prepared with Er:YAG laser; in the second group, cavities were preparedwith the conventional method. Each group was divided in three subgroups according to theadhesive system (Clearfil Se Bond, Silorane, Futurabond). After termocycled for 1000 cycles, themicrotensile test was performed in a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed by two wayANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s tests (p<0.05).Result: Results were as follows: Laser-Silorane (21.1±6.92 MPa); Conventional-Silorane(21.09±3.72 MPa); Laser-Futurabond (20.77±5.26 MPa); Conventional-Futurabond (19.01±3.89MPa); Laser-Clearfil (24.14±5.4); Conventional-Clearfil (28.78±5.98). There are statisticallysignificant differences between the adhesives for the tested parameters (p<0.05). Clearfil SeBond presented significantly the highest, Silorane and Futurabond presented the lowest, wherasno significant differences were detected between these two (p<0.05). Regardless of the materialsused, there were no significant differences between the laser and the conventional cavities.Conclusion: Er:YAG did not significantly improved the bond strength of adhesive systems. Theapplication of Clearfil Se Bond to laser or conventional prepared dentin was found the mosteffective method.

Keywords

• cervical vertebral anomalies
• fusion
• cbct