Abstract

GONCALVES, Aline de Oliveira et al. 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). RSBO (Online) [online]. 2014, vol.11, n.1, pp. 28-40. ISSN 1984-5685.

ABSTRACT Introduction and Objective: 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.

Keywords : dental cavity preparation; confocal microscopy; lasers; scanning electron microscopy; smear layer; dentinal adhesives.