|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 129-134
Adhesion in dentin prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG laser: Systematic review
Ana Catarina Silva1, Paulo Melo1, João Cardoso Ferreira1, Teresa Oliveira1, Norbert Gutknecht2
1 Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
2 Department of Operative Dentistry, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
|Date of Web Publication||17-Dec-2019|
Dr. Ana Catarina Silva
Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculdade de Medicina Dentária da Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Manuel Pereira da Silva, 4200-393 Porto
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
| Abstract|| |
Background: In dentistry, cavities prepared with Erbium lasers present more advantages, compared to traditional methods, but there is still a lack of investigation about the adhesion in dentin surfaces prepared with Erbium lasers, especially with Erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser. Aim: The purpose of this systematic review was to find out which might be “The most adequate adhesive and laser parameters for adhesion in dentin prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG laser.” Methods: An electronic search was performed in the PubMed database. The search was limited to studies between 2009 and 2016. Results: Ten articles were selected to the systematic review according to TRANSPARENT REPORTING of Systematic Reviews and Meta-ANALYSES checklist. Conclusions: The adhesive that showed the best bond strength results in dentin prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG laser was the self-adhesive Clearfil™ SE (Kuraray), with preconditioning with 40% phosphoric acid. The settings 2 W, 75% water, 60% air, 140 μs pulse duration, and 20 Hz showed the best adhesion outcome.
Keywords: Adhesion, bond strength, dentin, erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet, laser
|How to cite this article:|
Silva AC, Melo P, Ferreira JC, Oliveira T, Gutknecht N. Adhesion in dentin prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG laser: Systematic review. Contemp Clin Dent 2019;10:129-34
| Introduction|| |
Over the years, there have been many attempts to understand and improve the adhesion of dental materials to dentin. The first attempts to condition the dentin resulted in poor micromechanical adherence, due to preferential conditioning of peritubular dentin. The hydrophobic characteristics of the composite resins do not allow its penetration in peritubular walls due to their inability to move the dentinal fluid, which resulted in dentinal tags away from the walls of the tubules along with polymerization shrinkage.
Dentin is a hard tissue, consisting of 70% mineral component, 20% organic matrix, and 10% fluid. The organic matrix consists of 90% fibrillar collagen type I, and the remaining 10% is noncollagen proteins, proteoglycans, in particular phosphoproteins. The three-dimensional structure is formed by intratubular and peritubular dentin and tubules that extend from the pulp to the dentin–enamel junction.
Dentin is a complex biological and hydrated structure, and therefore the interactions with other structures and materials are limited.
The formation of the hybrid layer with impregnation of resin monomers in partially demineralized dentin and its polymerization is the currently accepted and more successfully method to achieve adhesion to dentin.,
The Erbium laser cavity preparation in dentistry is more advantageous compared to traditional methods using handpiece, since it prevents microcracks, decreases the vibration, and has a bactericidal effect. With this method, there is no need of anesthesia, the patient also feels less uncomfortable regarding the noise and pressure.,
The Erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er, Cr:YSGG) laser has a wavelength of 2.79 μm, and the ablation occurs by the absorption of the incident energy by water molecules, resulting in microburst in the surface of the dentin. The dentin ablation threshold is 2.69–3.66 J/cm2.
The cavity preparation using Erbium laser results in the absence of smear layer, open dentinal tubules, and microirregularities due to the removal of intertubular dentine. The laser effect on collagen network is still not completely clear, but it is accepted that the laser irradiation may cause changes and microruptures in collagen fibers.
The studies on adhesion to dentin prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG show contradictory results, yet there is no consensus on what are the best laser parameters and the best adhesive material to use.
A systematic review on adhesion in dentin prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG laser might lead to a better understanding, giving some answers regarding this question.
The aim of this study is to do a systematic review that could identify what are the most adequate adhesive and laser parameters to be used in dentin prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG laser.
| Methods|| |
The search was limited to studies in vitro conducted in healthy human dentin, written in English between 2009 and 2016; a combination of the following terms was used: Adhesion, laser, Er, Cr:YSGG, and dentin bond strength. In total, 44 articles have been found. The titles and abstracts of potential references were manually examined to exclude irrelevant publications, and those with no full-text version available were also excluded. In total, 10 articles were selected [Table 1].
An electronic search was performed in the PubMed database, through the Virtual private network (VPN) of the Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Porto.
There was a risk of a potential bias in this review related to the language, since the selection was reduced to articles written in English only.
The following selection criteria were used: (1) original articles, (2) articles in English, (3) articles available with full text, (4) use of human and healthy teeth, (5) articles with in vitro tests performed in dentin, (6) dentin preparations with Er, Cr:YSGG laser [Table 1].
The titles and abstracts of all studies were examined, and the full-text articles relevant for the review in accordance with the methods of inclusion and exclusion were analyzed. The articles were identified, analyzed, selected, and included in the systematic review according to TRANSPARENT REPORTING of Systematic Reviews and Meta-ANALYSES checklist [Table 2].
|Table 2: Flowchart according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses|
Click here to view
| Results|| |
Using the foregoing screening method, 44 articles were found. After analyzing the titles and abstracts, 6 articles were excluded because of the lack of access to the full text [Table 2].
The remaining 38 articles were analyzed, and those selected were the ones who did not have any exclusion criteria, as articles in language other than English, containing tests on carious or sclerotic dentin and studies in primary dentition [Table 2].
At the end, 10 articles met all the requirements for this systematic review and were selected.
[Table 3] and [Table 4] show the analysis of the bond strength considering the adhesive, the laser settings, and the type of surface conditioning, and the selected articles are described below.
|Table 3: Shear bond strength of adhesives in dentin prepared with erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser, conditioning type and laser settings|
Click here to view
|Table 4: Shear bond strength of adhesives in dentin prepared with erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser and laser settings|
Click here to view
In the article by Takada et al., two self-etch adhesives were used: one consisting of primer and adhesive, the Clearfil™ SE Bond (Kuraray, New York, USA) and the other was one step, Clearfil™ Tri-S Bond (Kuraray, New York, USA). In this study, there were two more groups where the adhesives were also tested with additional treatment with 40% of phosphoric acid and 10% sodium hypochlorite gel. The Er, Cr:YSGG laser parameters used were the following: 2 W, 75% water, 60% air, 140 μs pulse duration, and 20 Hz. The best bond strength results (average about 41 MPa) was obtained by using laser in dentin, followed by phosphoric acid etching at 40% for 30 s, and applying the adhesive Clearfil™ SE bond [Table 3]. The group treated only with laser and Clearfil™ SE Bond was the one with the lowest bond strength.
In the study by Ramos et al., they tested the Single Bond™ adhesive (3M ESPE, Minneapolis, USA) (etch-and-rinse) and the Clearfil™ SE bond in laser-treated dentin with Er, Cr:YSGG laser, using the following settings: 1.5 W, 70% water, 65% air, 140 μs pulse duration, and frequency 30 Hz. The results of the bond strengths were higher for Clearfil™ SE Bond (38.7 ± 16.5 MPa) [Table 4] than for Single Bond™ group (33.4 ± 6.1 MPa) [Table 4], but without significant statistical difference.
The authors Shahabi et al. used the Er, Cr:YSGG laser with the following parameters 3.5 W, 65% water, 55% air, 140 μs pulse duration, and 20 Hz in dentin, with Adper™ Single Bond (3M ESPE, Minneapolis, USA) after acid etching with 37% phosphoric acid for 20 s, getting a bond strength of 4.85 ± 0.93 MPa [Table 3].
By testing three different adhesives, Excite® (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), Scotchbond™ Multipurpose (3M ESPE, Minneapolis, USA), and Syntac® Classic (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), in dentin prepared with the same laser parameters, 2 W with 65% water, 55% air, with and without 37% phosphoric acid etching, Beer et al. achieved the best results (average 14.07 MPa) with the use of Syntac® without etching.
Adebayo et al. tested the adhesives Clearfil™ SE Bond, Xeno® IV (Dentsply, York, Pennsylvania, USA) and Tokuyma Bond Force® (Tokuyma Dental, Japan) in laser-treated dentin with Er, Cr:YSSG laser with 3.5 W, 60% water, and 65% air, and an energy density of 109.4 J/cm2, obtaining the best result with IV Xeno® adhesive (average of 10.4 MPa).
In the study by Jaberi Ansari et al., the conditioning of the dentin with 1 W, 55% water and 65% air, and application of Single Bond™ adhesive (3M™) resulted in adhesion strength of 22.44 ± 5.41 MPa [Table 4].
The use of different etching durations in the paper by Ferreira et al., and Single Bond™ in dentin prepared with 4 W, 75% water, and 65% air, resulted in a better adhesion strength (12.38 ± 2 47 MPa) in the group where conditioning was performed for 15 s with phosphoric acid at 35% [Table 3].
The authors Obeidi et al. performed a similar study to the one of Ferreira et al., using the parameters 3 W, 70% water, and 60% air, with application of the adhesive Adper™ Single Bond Plus and conditioning with 37% phosphoric acid, with different durations, getting the best result of adhesion, with a duration of 15 s conditioning (13.62 ± 7.28 MPa) [Table 3].
In 2009, Obeidi et al. tested the use of an excavator after application of Er, Cr:YSGG laser with 3 W, 70% water and 60% air, and acid etching with 37% phosphoric acid, using the Single Bond™ Plus, having the best adhesion strength (±14 MPa) using the excavator and etching for 15 s.
In the paper by Botta et al., the adhesives Adper™ Single Bond, Clearfil ™ SE Bond, and One Up® F were tested in dentin prepared with the parameters 0.25 W, 50% air and with 20% water and without any water, resulting in better adhesion strength in the group which was used water during cavity preparation with Clearfil™ SE Bond (16.28 ± 2.93 MPa) [Table 4].
The best result on bond strength (average about 41MPa) resulted from the use of self-etch adhesive Clearfil™ SE conditioned with 40% phosphoric acid for 30 s, as shown in [Table 3]. The second best result (average of approximately 39 MPa) was obtained with additional conditioning of 90% sodium hypochlorite gel for 90 s.
The best results achieved with Er, Cr:YSGG and no additional conditioning of dentin was with the settings of 1.5 W, 140 μs of pulse duration, 30 Hz of frequency, 70% water, and 65% air, with the adhesive Clearfil™ SE [Table 4].
| Discussion|| |
In recent years, there has been a large development in technologies regarding the preparation of tooth surfaces, such as the use of Er, Cr:YSGG laser. In this sense, there has been a growing need to test, study, and understand how dental materials, which are designed to work in cavities prepared with conventional methods, would result in cavities prepared with laser.
In the case of adhesion to dentine, there are several factors that can influence adhesion including: the substrate, the type of treatment, and conditioning of the dentin., In fact, adhesion to dentin was always a bigger challenge than adhesion to enamel because of its water content and collagen.
There is a consensus, shown in several studies, that the dentin prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG laser presents a rough and uneven surface, with open dentinal tubules and no smear layer. The intertubular dentin undergoes greater ablation than the peritubular dentin, since it has a higher amount of water, resulting in dentin tubules protruded.
All the features mentioned above should provide, in theory, good conditions for adhesion, if not better than the ones resulting from the preparation with handpiece.
However, in many studies, it is seen that the bond strength in dentin prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG laser is still lower than the one achieved with handpiece preparation,,,, and the most suitable adhesive for use in this type of surfaces is still a controversial issue with no consensus.,
In the self-etch adhesive systems, the acids are weak, achieving adhesion to dentin through the conditioning and simultaneous infiltration of adhesive monomers, in the surface of the dentin.
The self-etch adhesive systems theoretically would be most appropriate for use in laser-prepared dentine, and should obtain the best adhesion results.
Due to the heterogeneity of the laser parameters, the adhesive procedures and the adhesive materials used, it was not possible to carry out a meta-analysis, so it was performed an analysis of selected items from a descriptive point of view. There was also a risk of a potential bias in this review related to the language, since the selection was reduced to articles written in English only.
From the analyzed articles, it was found that the best results were obtained with the self-etch adhesive Clearfil™ SE with the settings 2 W, 75% water, 60% air, 140 μs pulse duration and 20 Hz and conditioning with 40% phosphoric acid; and with the etch and rinse Single Bond™ (3M™), using 1.5 W, 70% water, 65% air, 140 μs pulse duration, and frequency of 30 Hz.,
On the other hand, in the study by Ramos et al., it was possible to compare the adhesion strength of Clearfil™ SE and Single Bond™ adhesives without acid etching, and despite having an adhesion strength (38.7 ± 16.5 MPa) slightly lower than the previous study, Clearfil™ SE continued to show the best result. In the same article, the adhesives Clearfil™ SE and Single Bond™ presented better results when tested in dentin surfaces prepared with diamond bur (47.9 ± 16.5 MPa and 41.0 ± 10.7 MPa, respectively).
Also, Adebayo et al. tested the shear bond strength Clearfil™ SE in dentin prepared with diamond bur, getting better results than when using laser (13.0 ± 5.05 MPa vs. 9.0 ± 3.35 MPa).
The worst bond strength results were recorded with the use of Scotchbond™ Multipurpose adhesive (average 3.5 MPa), Excite® (average 5.2 MPa) with the settings 2 W with 65% water, 55% air and with Adper™ Single Bond (mean 4.85 ± 0.93 MPa) with 3.5 W, 65% water, 55% air, 140 μs pulse duration, and 20 Hz in dentin. In all cases, etching was carried out with 37% phosphoric acid before application of the adhesive.
The adhesive Excite® and Adper Single Bond™ are both two-step adhesives, while Scotchbond™ Multipurpose is divided into three steps: etching, primer, and bonding.
Scotchbond™ Multipurpose and Excite® showed better shear bond strength with no acid etching prior to application of the adhesive, with average of 9.65 MPa and average of 9.02 MPa, respectively.
The use of phosphoric acid in dental surfaces prepared by laser dissolves the intertubular dentin causing a change in surface produced by the laser, leading to demineralization of the dentine to a depth unpredictable, which may interfere with the diffusion of the monomers.,,
The laser parameters such as power, frequency, pulse duration, the percentage of water and air, and consequently the energy density, used in a given treatment, interfere with ablation and the type of final surface. Examples of that are the different bond strength results obtained with the same adhesive, Clearfil™ SE Bond, with the same application procedure, but different parameters. The settings of 1.5 W, 70% water, 65% air, 140 μs pulse duration and frequency 30 Hz, energy density of 4.5 J/cm2 resulted in a bond strength of 38.7 ± 16.5 MPa, while the settings of 3.5 W, 60% water and 65% air, and an energy density of 109.4 J/cm2 resulted in 9.0 ± 3.35 MPa., This means that the settings of the laser device might play an important role in the bond strength of the adhesives.
The Clearfil™ SE Bond has in its composition the MDP monomer (10-Metacriloiloxidecil dihydrogen phosphate), and a molecule, according to the manufacturer, with better capacity for chemical adhesion to the structure of tooth, enamel, and dentin. This might be the reason why it showed better results.
According to Takada et al., the application of phosphoric acid after laser preparation of dentin resulted in widely open dentin tubules and intertubular dentin protruded. These findings might explain why there were better adhesion results with application of phosphoric acid in lased dentin.
All dental products on the market are designed to operate on tooth surfaces prepared with handpiece, thus all studies conducted end up testing these products. However, the results should be used to develop new products, taking into account the characteristics of the prepared tooth surfaces with a laser.
| Conclusions|| |
The adhesive that showed the best shear bond strength results was the two steps self-etch adhesive, Clearfil™ SE after conditioning with 40% phosphoric acid, with the settings 2 W, 75% water, 60% air, 140 μs pulse duration, and 20 Hz (energy density 50.96 J/cm2). The laser parameters used in a particular treatment seem to interfere with the type of final surface and bond strength of the adhesive.
The results of this systematic review show a kind of adhesive and specific laser settings that might be useful to develop new investigation that could lead to new products and to the best preparation of tooth surfaces with a laser device.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Marshall GW Jr., Marshall SJ, Kinney JH, Balooch M. The dentin substrate: Structure and properties related to bonding. J Dent 1997;25:441-58.
Bedran-Russo AK, Pereira PN, Duarte WR, Drummond JL, Yamauchi M. Application of crosslinkers to dentin collagen enhances the ultimate tensile strength. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007;80:268-72.
Nakabayashi N. Adhesive bonding with 4-META. Oper Dent 1992;Suppl 5:125-30.
Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1982;16:265-73.
Guven Y, Aktoren O. Shear bond strength and ultrastructural interface analysis of different adhesive systems to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin. Lasers Med Sci 2015;30:769-78.
Koyuturk AE, Ozmen B, Cortcu M, Tokay U, Tosun G, Erhan Sari M, et al.
Effects of Er:YAG laser on bond strength of self-etching adhesives to caries-affected dentin. Microsc Res Tech 2014;77:282-8.
Lin S, Liu Q, Peng Q, Lin M, Zhan Z, Zhang X. The ablation threshold of Er:YAG laser and Er, Cr:YSGG laser in dental dentin. Acad J 2010;5:2128-35.
Aranha AC, De Paula Eduardo C, Gutknecht N, Marques MM, Ramalho KM, Apel C, et al.
Analysis of the interfacial micromorphology of adhesive systems in cavities prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG, Er:YAG laser and bur. Microsc Res Tech 2007;70:745-51.
Dunn WJ, Davis JT, Bush AC. Shear bond strength and SEM evaluation of composite bonded to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin and enamel. Dent Mater 2005;21:616-24.
Takada M, Shinkai K, Kato C, Suzuki M. Bond strength of composite resin to enamel and dentin prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG laser. Dent Mater J 2015;34:863-71.
Ramos TM, Ramos-Oliveira TM, Moretto SG, de Freitas PM, Esteves-Oliveira M, de Paula Eduardo C, et al.
Microtensile bond strength analysis of adhesive systems to Er:YAG and Er, Cr:YSGG laser-treated dentin. Lasers Med Sci 2014;29:565-73.
Shahabi S, Chiniforush N, Bahramian H, Monzavi A, Baghalian A, Kharazifard MJ, et al.
The effect of erbium family laser on tensile bond strength of composite to dentin in comparison with conventional method. Lasers Med Sci 2013;28:139-42.
Beer F, Buchmair A, Körpert W, Marvastian L, Wernisch J, Moritz A, et al.
Morphology of resin-dentin interfaces after Er, Cr:YSGG laser and acid etching preparation and application of different bonding systems. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:835-41.
Adebayo OA, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ, Palamara J. Effect of tooth surface preparation on the bonding of self-etching primer adhesives. Oper Dent 2012;37:137-49.
Jaberi Ansari Z, Fekrazad R, Feizi S, Younessian F, Kalhori KA, Gutknecht N, et al.
The effect of an Er, Cr:YSGG laser on the micro-shear bond strength of composite to the enamel and dentin of human permanent teeth. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:761-5.
Ferreira LS, Apel C, Francci C, Simoes A, Eduardo CP, Gutknecht N, et al.
Influence of etching time on bond strength in dentin irradiated with erbium lasers. Lasers Med Sci 2010;25:849-54.
Obeidi A, Liu PR, Ramp LC, Beck P, Gutknecht N. Acid-etch interval and shear bond strength of Er, Cr:YSGG laser-prepared enamel and dentin. Lasers Med Sci 2010;25:363-9.
Obeidi A, McCracken MS, Liu PR, Litaker MS, Beck P, Rahemtulla F, et al.
Enhancement of bonding to enamel and dentin prepared by Er, Cr:YSGG laser. Lasers Surg Med 2009;41:454-62.
Botta SB, da Ana PA, Zezell DM, Powers JM, Matos AB. Adhesion after erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser application at three different irradiation conditions. Lasers Med Sci 2009;24:67-73.
Yazici AR, Agarwal I, Campillo-Funollet M, Munoz-Viveros C, Antonson SA, Antonson DE, et al.
Effect of laser preparation on bond strength of a self-adhesive flowable resin. Lasers Med Sci 2013;28:343-7.
Braga RR, Meira JB, Boaro LC, Xavier TA. Adhesion to tooth structure: A critical review of “macro” test methods. Dent Mater 2010;26:e38-49.
Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LH, Soares CJ, Yamagawa J, et al.
Adhesion to tooth structure: A critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods. Dent Mater 2010;26:e50-62.
Lee BS, Lin PY, Chen MH, Hsieh TT, Lin CP, Lai JY, et al.
Tensile bond strength of Er, Cr:YSGG laser-irradiated human dentin and analysis of dentin-resin interface. Dent Mater 2007;23:570-8.
Moretto SG, Azambuja N
Jr., Arana-Chavez VE, Reis AF, Giannini M, Eduardo Cde P, et al.
Effects of ultramorphological changes on adhesion to lased dentin-scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy analysis. Microsc Res Tech 2011;74:720-6.
Tseng WY, Chen MH, Lu HH, Lin CW, Hsieh TT, Chen CH, et al.
Tensile bond strength of Er, Cr:YSGG laser-irradiated human dentin to composite inlays with two resin cements. Dent Mater J 2007;26:746-55.
Ergücü Z, Celik EU, Unlü N, Türkün M, Ozer F. Effect of Er, Cr:YSGG laser on the microtensile bond strength of two different adhesives to the sound and caries-affected dentin. Oper Dent 2009;34:460-6.
Ramos TM, Ramos-Oliveira TM, de Freitas PM, Azambuja N
Jr., Esteves-Oliveira M, Gutknecht N, et al.
Effects of Er:YAG and Er, Cr:YSGG laser irradiation on the adhesion to eroded dentin. Lasers Med Sci 2015;30:17-26.
Matos AB, Palma RG, Saraceni CH, Matson E. Effects of acid etching on dentin surface: SEM morphological study. Braz Dent J 1997;8:35-41.
Arrais CA, Giannini M. Morphology and thickness of the diffusion of resin through demineralized or unconditioned dentinal matrix. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2002;16:115-20.
Martínez-Insua A, Da Silva Dominguez L, Rivera FG, Santana-Penín UA. Differences in bonding to acid-etched or Er:YAG-laser-treated enamel and dentin surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:280-8.
Al-Ansari A, Al-Harbi F, Baba NZ.In vitro
evaluation of the bond strength of composite resin foundation materials to dentin. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:529-35.
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]