Glass ionomer microleakage from preparations by an Er/YAG laser or a high-speed handpiece

Quo, Brian C; Drummond, James L; Koerber, Anne; Fadavi, Shahrbanoo; Punwani, Indru

« Previous Next »Journal of Dentistry
Volume 30, Issue 4 , Pages 141-146, May 2002

Glass ionomer microleakage from preparations by an Er/YAG laser or a high-speed handpiece

Brian C Quo
- Department of Paediatric Dentistry, 337A College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, 801 South Paulina Street, Chicago, IL 60612 7212, USA
James L Drummond
- Department of Restorative Dentistry m/c 555, 337A College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, 801 South Paulina Street, Chicago, IL 60612 7212, USA
- Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-312-413-3790; fax: +1-312-996-3535
Anne Koerber
- Department of Paediatric Dentistry, 337A College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, 801 South Paulina Street, Chicago, IL 60612 7212, USA
Shahrbanoo Fadavi
- Department of Paediatric Dentistry, 337A College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, 801 South Paulina Street, Chicago, IL 60612 7212, USA
Indru Punwani
- Department of Paediatric Dentistry, 337A College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, 801 South Paulina Street, Chicago, IL 60612 7212, USA

Received 1 September 2001; received in revised form 15 July 2002; accepted 26 July 2002.

Abstract

Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare microleakage of glass ionomer materials (GIC) using two different modes of cavity preparation: a high-speed hand piece and an erbium/yttrium–aluminum–garnet (Er/YAG) laser.

Methods. Eighty caries free permanent molar teeth had class V preparations cut on both the buccal and lingual surfaces. The high-speed hand piece was used to prepare a class V cavity preparation on the buccal surface and an Er/YAG laser was used to prepare a class V cavity preparation on the lingual surface. GIC or resin modified GIC was used as the restorative material. The teeth were thermocycled for 7000 cycles, placed in 2% basic fushin for 24h, sectioned in the center of each restoration, and analyzed under a stereomicroscope.

Results. There was no statistical difference in microleakage between the two modes of cavity preparations. The gingival margins had more microleakage than the occlusal margins for both GIC materials and the resin modified GIC showed significantly more leakage than the conventional GIC.

Conclusions. The Er/YAG laser provided an equivalent method of tooth removal when evaluated for microleakage of GIC materials compared to a high-speed hand piece.

Keywords: Er/YAG laser, Microleakage, Glass ionomer materials