DSpace Repository

Effects of Different Combinations of Er:YAG Laser-Adhesives on Enamel Demineralization and Bracket Bond Strength

Show simple item record

dc.creator Cokakoglu, Serpil
dc.creator Usumez, Serdar
dc.creator Nalcaci, Ruhi
dc.creator Malkoc, Siddik
dc.date 2016-03-31T21:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned 2020-10-06T09:48:44Z
dc.date.available 2020-10-06T09:48:44Z
dc.identifier 4279214c-42be-4342-b98c-e06f10da5869
dc.identifier 10.1089/pho.2015.4041
dc.identifier https://avesis.sdu.edu.tr/publication/details/4279214c-42be-4342-b98c-e06f10da5869/oai
dc.identifier.uri http://acikerisim.sdu.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/123456789/58525
dc.description Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the demineralization around brackets and shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets bonded to Er:YAG laser-irradiated enamel at different power settings with various adhesive systems combinations. Methods: A total of 108 premolar teeth were used in this study. Teeth were assigned into three groups according to the etching procedure, then each group divided into three subgroups based on the application of different adhesive systems. There were a total of nine groups as follows. Group 1: Acid + Transbond XT Primer; group 2: Er:YAG (100 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Transbond XT Primer; group 3: Er:YAG (200 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Transbond XT Primer; group 4: Transbond Plus self-etching primer (SEP); group 5: Er:YAG (100 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Transbond Plus SEP; group 6: Er:YAG (200 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Transbond Plus SEP; group 7: Clearfil Protect Bond; group 8: Er:YAG (100 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Clearfil Protect Bond; group 9: Er:YAG (200 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Clearfil Protect Bond. Brackets were bonded with Transbond XT Adhesive Paste in all groups. Teeth to be evaluated for demineralization and SBS were exposed to pH and thermal cyclings, respectively. Then, demineralization samples were scanned with micro-CT to determine lesion depth values. For SBS test, a universal testing machine was used and adhesive remnant was index scored after debonding. Data were analyzed statistically. Results: No significant differences were found among the lesion depth values of the various groups, except for G7 and G8, in which the lowest values were recorded. The lowest SBS values were in G7, whereas the highest were in G9. The differences between the other groups were not significant. Conclusions: Er:YAG laser did not have a positive effect on prevention of enamel demineralization. When two step self-etch adhesive is preferred for bonding brackets, laser etching at 1 W (100 mJ, 10 Hz) is suggested to improve SBS of brackets.
dc.language eng
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.title Effects of Different Combinations of Er:YAG Laser-Adhesives on Enamel Demineralization and Bracket Bond Strength
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account