Microleakage of Cavity Class V Restored by Composite Resin and Conventional Flowable Composite Restorations in Primary Molars Conditioned by Er,Cr:YSGG Laser Versus Conventional method (An in Vitro Study) | ||||
Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
Article 12, Volume 67, Issue 2 - Serial Number 1, April 2021, Page 1017-1024 PDF (387.41 K) | ||||
Document Type: Original Article | ||||
DOI: 10.21608/edj.2021.47226.1302 | ||||
![]() | ||||
Author | ||||
Ayman Sabbah ![]() ![]() | ||||
Assistant Professor, Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, MIU, Cairo. | ||||
Abstract | ||||
Abstract Introduction: In modern operative dentistry in the field of pediatric dentistry Er,Cr:YSGG laser is suitable for cavity preparation in deciduous molars because it have many advantages. Microleakage is one of the major problems that influence the longevity for the resin-based dental restorations. The purpose of the current study is comparing the effect of Er,Cr:YSGG laser and conventional conditioning on the microleakage in cavity class V restored by composite resin and conventional flowable composite in deciduous molars. Materials and methods: A standard class V cavity were prepared at the buccal or lingual surface of forty-eight freshly extracted caries-free human deciduous molars which were divided into 2 groups according to the mode of conditioning: group 1: by using Er,Cr:YSGG laser; group 2: by using conventional conditioning. The samples were subjected to thermocycling and dying step. Results: Laser conditioning showed statistically significantly lower median microleakage scores than conventional technique (P-value = 0.001, Effect size = 1.923) and (P-value = 0.002, Effect size = 1.639), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between median microleakage scores of the two composite types (P-value = 0.057, Effect size = 0.718) and (P-value = 0.108, Effect size = 0.658), respectively. Conclusion: Conditioning by Er,Cr:YSGG Laser is better than conventional method as regards microleakage and no significant difference between composite resin and conventional flowable composite clinically. | ||||
Keywords | ||||
Microleakage; Er; Cr:YSGG laser; Composite resin; Conventional Flowable Composite | ||||
Statistics Article View: 283 PDF Download: 304 |
||||