Clinical comparison of Bur- and laser-prepared minimally invasive occlusal resin composite restorations: Two-year follow-up


YAZICI A. R., Baseren M., Gorucu J.

Operative Dentistry, cilt.35, sa.5, ss.500-507, 2010 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 35 Sayı: 5
  • Basım Tarihi: 2010
  • Doi Numarası: 10.2341/09-339-c
  • Dergi Adı: Operative Dentistry
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.500-507
  • Lokman Hekim Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır

Özet

This study evaluated the two-year clinical performance of two minimally invasive cavity preparation techniques, bur and laser, in Class I occlusal resin composite restorations. Twenty-seven patients, each having at least one pair of occlusal caries, were enrolled in this study. For each patient, one of the cavities was prepared with a diamond bur, and the other was prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG laser. The cavities were restored with a nanofilled flowable resin composite, Grandio Flow, using an etch-andrinse adhesive, Solobond M. A total of 108 restorations were placed in molars by a single operator. The restorations were evaluated according to modified Cvar/Ryge criteria. The evaluations were performed at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after initial placement by two calibrated operators. The Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis. All the patients were available during all evaluated periods, resulting in a recall rate of 100%. The retention rates of the restorations at 24 months were 98.1% for bur and 100% for the laser-prepared group. After 24 months, 5.6% of the bur-prepared and 7.4% of the laser-prepared restorations were rated Bravo in marginal discoloration (p>0.05). Bur-prepared (9.3%) and laser-prepared (13%) restorations were rated Bravo in marginal adaptation (p>0.05). There were no significant differences between the two cavity preparation techniques regarding the evaluated parameters (p>0.05). Both cavity preparation techniques performed equally, with excellent outcomes after a 24-month period.