Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2008 May-Aug;75(2):151-7.

Microleakage of glass ionomer restoration in cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation in primary teeth

Affiliations
  • PMID: 18647510
Randomized Controlled Trial

Microleakage of glass ionomer restoration in cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation in primary teeth

Rively Rodrigues Rossi et al. J Dent Child (Chic). 2008 May-Aug.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate microleakage of cavity preparation in primary teeth made with an Er, Cr:YSGG laser (L) or high-speed drill (HD) and conventional (CGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC).

Methods: One hundred primary teeth were divided into 10 groups (N=10): (a) groups 1 and 2 represented cavities prepared by a no. 1012 diamond bur with HD; (b) groups 3 through 10 represented cavities prepared with an Er, Cr:YSGG laser (with a repetition rate of 20 Hz power settings varying for enamel=2.5 W and 3 W and dentine=1.0 W and 1.5 W). After cavity preparation, samples were restored with CGIC (Ketac Molar Easy Mix) and RMGIC (Vitremer), impermeabilized, thermal cycled, stained, washed, and sectioned. The degree of dye penetration was scored by 3 standardized examiners using a light stereoscope at X30 magnification.

Results: The Kruskal-Wallis test detected no statistical differences between the cavity preparation methods (P<.049). Neither of the GICs tested were able to avoid microleakage, and the RMGIC showed the lowest statistical degree of microleakage compared with CGIC for both types of cavity preparation.

Conclusions: The Er,Cr:YSGG laser provided an equivalent method of cavity preparation compared to the high-speed drill. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement showed the lowest degree of microleakage. This restorative material should be considered when choosing the cavity preparation method.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources