Use of 9.3μm CO2 Laser for Removal of Zirconia Restorations

Grace Call
{"title":"Use of 9.3μm CO2 Laser for Removal of Zirconia Restorations","authors":"Grace Call","doi":"10.23880/oajds-16000312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The primary aim of this study was to test if a 9.3µm Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) laser could be used to effectively separate a cemented zirconia restoration from dentin. The secondary aim was to compare shear bond strength (SBS) between RelyXTM Unicem 2 Automix Cement (3M ESPE) (RelyXTM Unicem 2) and RelyXTM Luting Plus Automix Cement (3M ESPE) (RelyX™ Luting Plus). Methods: 40 teeth were prepared to expose dentin and then randomized into four groups of 10 samples. Zirconia slices (non-glazed Yttrium stabilized zirconia samples (2.5 x 3 x 1.5 mm)) were sandblasted with 50 micron aluminum oxide at 30 psi and then cemented onto the dentin samples with RelyX™ Unicem 2 or RelyX™ Luting Plus, dependent on the group. The cements were applied to both the zirconia and dentin with a force of 20 g/mm2 for 30 seconds following manufacturer’s recommendations. After 48 hours, the 9.3µm CO2 laser was used on half the samples for 5 seconds. All 40 zirconia samples were removed with the Instron 5566A in a traditional SBS test. The groups were: 1A - RelyX™ Unicem 2 and Laser, 1B - RelyX™ Unicem 2 and Shear Bond, 2A - RelyX™ Luting Plus and Laser, and 2B - RelyX™ Luting Plus and Shear Bond. The Mann–Whitney U test was used for comparison. Results: Mean SBS of four groups ranged from 0.5 to 4.4 MPa. There was a significant difference in the SBS between 9.3µm CO2 laser and Shear Force methods for RelyX™ Luting Plus. However, the difference between the two methods was not significant for RelyX Unicem 2. RelyX™ Unicem 2 provided significantly higher SBS than RelyX™ Luting Plus for both the CO2 laser and shear force methods (Table 2). Conclusion: The 9.3µm CO2 laser effectively separated the zirconia restoration cemented with RelyX™ Luting Plus from dentin. RelyX™ Unicem 2 provided significantly stronger SBS than RelyX™ Luting Plus.","PeriodicalId":206273,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Journal of Dental Sciences","volume":"138 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Journal of Dental Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23880/oajds-16000312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to test if a 9.3µm Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) laser could be used to effectively separate a cemented zirconia restoration from dentin. The secondary aim was to compare shear bond strength (SBS) between RelyXTM Unicem 2 Automix Cement (3M ESPE) (RelyXTM Unicem 2) and RelyXTM Luting Plus Automix Cement (3M ESPE) (RelyX™ Luting Plus). Methods: 40 teeth were prepared to expose dentin and then randomized into four groups of 10 samples. Zirconia slices (non-glazed Yttrium stabilized zirconia samples (2.5 x 3 x 1.5 mm)) were sandblasted with 50 micron aluminum oxide at 30 psi and then cemented onto the dentin samples with RelyX™ Unicem 2 or RelyX™ Luting Plus, dependent on the group. The cements were applied to both the zirconia and dentin with a force of 20 g/mm2 for 30 seconds following manufacturer’s recommendations. After 48 hours, the 9.3µm CO2 laser was used on half the samples for 5 seconds. All 40 zirconia samples were removed with the Instron 5566A in a traditional SBS test. The groups were: 1A - RelyX™ Unicem 2 and Laser, 1B - RelyX™ Unicem 2 and Shear Bond, 2A - RelyX™ Luting Plus and Laser, and 2B - RelyX™ Luting Plus and Shear Bond. The Mann–Whitney U test was used for comparison. Results: Mean SBS of four groups ranged from 0.5 to 4.4 MPa. There was a significant difference in the SBS between 9.3µm CO2 laser and Shear Force methods for RelyX™ Luting Plus. However, the difference between the two methods was not significant for RelyX Unicem 2. RelyX™ Unicem 2 provided significantly higher SBS than RelyX™ Luting Plus for both the CO2 laser and shear force methods (Table 2). Conclusion: The 9.3µm CO2 laser effectively separated the zirconia restoration cemented with RelyX™ Luting Plus from dentin. RelyX™ Unicem 2 provided significantly stronger SBS than RelyX™ Luting Plus.
使用9.3μm CO2激光去除氧化锆修复体
目的:本研究的主要目的是测试9.3 μ m二氧化碳(CO2)激光是否可以有效地将胶结氧化锆修复体与牙本质分离。第二个目的是比较RelyXTM Unicem 2 Automix Cement (3M ESPE) (RelyXTM Unicem 2)和RelyXTM Luting Plus Automix Cement (3M ESPE) (RelyX™Luting Plus)之间的剪切粘结强度(SBS)。方法:将40颗预备暴露牙本质的牙齿随机分为4组,每组10颗。氧化锆片(无釉面钇稳定的氧化锆样品(2.5 x 3 x 1.5 mm))在30 psi下用50微米氧化铝喷砂,然后使用RelyX™Unicem 2或RelyX™Luting Plus粘合到牙本质样品上,具体取决于组。按照制造商的建议,将胶合剂以20 g/mm2的力作用于氧化锆和牙本质上30秒。48小时后,用9.3µm CO2激光照射一半的样品5秒。所有40份氧化锆样品均采用传统的SBS测试,用Instron 5566A去除。分组为:1A - RelyX™Unicem 2和Laser, 1B - RelyX™Unicem 2和Shear Bond, 2A - RelyX™Luting Plus和Laser, 2B - RelyX™Luting Plus和Shear Bond。采用Mann-Whitney U检验进行比较。结果:4组患者平均SBS在0.5 ~ 4.4 MPa之间。RelyX™Luting Plus的9.3µm CO2激光与剪切力方法的SBS有显著差异。然而,对于RelyX Unicem 2,两种方法之间的差异并不显著。无论是CO2激光还是剪切力方法,RelyX™Unicem 2的SBS都明显高于RelyX™Luting Plus(表2)。结论:9.3µm CO2激光有效地将RelyX™Luting Plus胶结的氧化锆修复体与牙本质分离。RelyX™Unicem 2提供比RelyX™Luting Plus更强的SBS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信