Effect of Er:YAG laser and diamond drill on hybrid layer morphology obtained with self-etch adhesive: analysis by SEM and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM)

Nenhuma Miniatura disponível




Gonçalves, Aline de Oliveira [UNESP]
Kubo, Cinthia Sawamura [UNESP]
Oliveira Júnior, Osmir Batista de [UNESP]
Campos, Edson Alves [UNESP]
Andrade, Marcelo Ferrarezi de [UNESP]

Título da Revista

ISSN da Revista

Título de Volume



This study aimed to evaluate the effect of Er:YAG (L) and diamond drills (DD) on: 1) the microshear bond strength (MPa); 2) the adhesive interface of two-step (TS) – Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose and one-step (OS) adhesives – Adper EasyOne, both from 3M ESPE. Material and methods: According to the preparation condition and adhesives, the samples were divided into four groups: DD_TS (control); DD_OS; L_TS and L_OS. 60 bovine incisors were randomly divided into experimental and groups: 40 for microshear bond strength (n = 10) and 20 for the adhesive interface morphology [6 to measure the thickness of the hybrid layer (HL) and length of tags (t) by CLSM (n = 3); 12 to the adhesive interface morphology by SEM (n = 3) and 2 to illustrate the effect of the instruments on dentine by SEM (n = 1)]. To conduct the microshear bond strength test, four cylinders (0.7 mm in diameter and 1 mm in height with area of adhesion of 0.38 mm) were constructed with resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT – 3M ESPE) on each dentin surface treated by either L or DD and after adhesives application. Microshear bond strength was performed in universal testing machine (EMIC 2000) with load cell of 500 kgf and a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm / min. Adhesive interface was characterized by thickness of hybrid layer (HL) and length of tags (t) in nm, with the aid of UTHSCSA ImageTool software. Results: Microshear bond strength values were: L_TS 34.10 ± 19.07, DD_TS 24.26 ± 9.35, L_OS 33.18 ± 12.46, DD_OS 21.24 ± 13.96. Two-way ANOVA resulted in statistically significant differences only for instruments (p = 0.047). Mann-Whitney identified the instruments which determined significant differences for HL thickness and tag length (t). Concerning to the adhesive types, these differences were only observed for (t). Conclusion: It can be concluded that 1) laser Er:YAG results in higher microshear bond strength values regardless of the adhesive system (TS and OS); 2) the tags did not significant affect the microshear bond strength; 3) the adhesive interface was affected by both the instruments for cavity preparation and the type of adhesive system used.



Dental cavity preparation, Confocal microscopy, Lasers, Scanning electron microscopy, Smear layer, Dentinal adhesives

Como citar

RSBO. Revista Sul-Brasileira de Odontologia, v. 11, n. 1, p. 28-40, 2014.