Experimental and Chitosan-Infused Adhesive with Dentin Pretreated with Femtosecond Laser, Methylene Blue-Activated Low-Level Laser, and Phosphoric Acid.
{"title":"Experimental and Chitosan-Infused Adhesive with Dentin Pretreated with Femtosecond Laser, Methylene Blue-Activated Low-Level Laser, and Phosphoric Acid.","authors":"Fahad Alkhudhairy","doi":"10.1089/pho.2024.0077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Aim:</i></b> To prepare experimental adhesive (EA) with 1% and without chitosan nanoparticles on dentin conditioned with a conventional technique phosphoric acid (PA) compared with two different contemporary techniques: photodynamic therapy (PDT) and femtosecond laser (FSL). <b><i>Method:</i></b> The methodology consisted of synthesis of EA and 1% chitosan-modified adhesive (CMA). Scanning electron microscopy, dentin adhesive interface assessment, energy-dispersive spectroscopy, shear bond strength (SBS), degree of conversion (DC), and bond failure were assessed. Teeth were selected, disinfected, and mounted in acrylic up to the cementoenamel junction. Occlusal enamel was removed and teeth were randomly allocated into groups and conditioned. These included Group 1: samples treated with PA; Group 2: specimens conditioned with methylene blue photosensitizer (MBP) activated by PDT; and Group 3: samples conditioned with FSL. Following different conditioning regimes, specimens were bonded using 1% CMA and EA. The composite buildup was followed by SBS testing and a bond failure assessment. DC was assessed for both EA and CMA. Analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test were used to compare the mean and standard deviation of SBS and DC in different experimental groups, with a significance level of <i>p</i> < 0.05. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Dentin pretreated with etch and rinse demonstrated the highest bond strength with 1% CMA. Dentin conditioned with MBP activated by PDT and bonded to EA showed the lowest bond scores. Overall SBS values of 1% CMA were better than EA irrespective of the conditioning regime of dentin. The DC was higher in EA adhesive. This was followed by DC in 1% CMA. DC in EA was found to be comparable with 1% CMA. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> PA remains the gold standard for dentin conditioning. The incorporation of 1% chitosan in adhesive improves SBS and results in no change in DC. The use of FSL in dentin conditioning can be used as an alternative approach as it results in SBS within acceptable limits. The study was approved by the ethical board of King Saud University.</p>","PeriodicalId":94169,"journal":{"name":"Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery","volume":" ","pages":"634-642"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2024.0077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To prepare experimental adhesive (EA) with 1% and without chitosan nanoparticles on dentin conditioned with a conventional technique phosphoric acid (PA) compared with two different contemporary techniques: photodynamic therapy (PDT) and femtosecond laser (FSL). Method: The methodology consisted of synthesis of EA and 1% chitosan-modified adhesive (CMA). Scanning electron microscopy, dentin adhesive interface assessment, energy-dispersive spectroscopy, shear bond strength (SBS), degree of conversion (DC), and bond failure were assessed. Teeth were selected, disinfected, and mounted in acrylic up to the cementoenamel junction. Occlusal enamel was removed and teeth were randomly allocated into groups and conditioned. These included Group 1: samples treated with PA; Group 2: specimens conditioned with methylene blue photosensitizer (MBP) activated by PDT; and Group 3: samples conditioned with FSL. Following different conditioning regimes, specimens were bonded using 1% CMA and EA. The composite buildup was followed by SBS testing and a bond failure assessment. DC was assessed for both EA and CMA. Analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test were used to compare the mean and standard deviation of SBS and DC in different experimental groups, with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: Dentin pretreated with etch and rinse demonstrated the highest bond strength with 1% CMA. Dentin conditioned with MBP activated by PDT and bonded to EA showed the lowest bond scores. Overall SBS values of 1% CMA were better than EA irrespective of the conditioning regime of dentin. The DC was higher in EA adhesive. This was followed by DC in 1% CMA. DC in EA was found to be comparable with 1% CMA. Conclusions: PA remains the gold standard for dentin conditioning. The incorporation of 1% chitosan in adhesive improves SBS and results in no change in DC. The use of FSL in dentin conditioning can be used as an alternative approach as it results in SBS within acceptable limits. The study was approved by the ethical board of King Saud University.
目的:制备含 1%和不含壳聚糖纳米颗粒的牙本质实验粘合剂(EA),并将其与两种不同的现代技术:光动力疗法(PDT)和飞秒激光(FSL)进行比较。方法:方法包括合成 EA 和 1%壳聚糖改性粘合剂(CMA)。对扫描电子显微镜、牙本质粘接界面评估、能量色散光谱、剪切粘接强度(SBS)、转换度(DC)和粘接失败进行评估。选取牙齿,进行消毒,并将其安装在丙烯酸树脂中,直至牙本质釉质交界处。去除咬合面珐琅质,将牙齿随机分配到不同的组别并进行调节。其中包括:第 1 组:用 PA 处理的样本;第 2 组:用亚甲基蓝光敏剂 (MBP) 激活 PDT 调理的样本;第 3 组:用 FSL 调理的样本。在采用不同的调节机制后,使用 1% CMA 和 EA 对试样进行粘合。复合材料堆积后进行 SBS 测试和粘接失效评估。对 EA 和 CMA 都进行了 DC 评估。采用方差分析和 Tukey 后验法比较不同实验组中 SBS 和 DC 的平均值和标准偏差,显著性水平为 p <0.05。结果经蚀刻和冲洗预处理的牙本质与 1% CMA 的粘接强度最高。用 PDT 激活的 MBP 调理牙本质并与 EA 粘接后,粘接得分最低。无论牙本质的调节机制如何,1% CMA 的总体 SBS 值都优于 EA。EA 粘合剂的 DC 值较高。其次是 1%CMA。发现 EA 中的 DC 与 1%CMA相当。结论:PA 仍是牙本质调节的黄金标准。在粘合剂中加入 1%的壳聚糖可提高 SBS,但不会改变 DC。在牙本质调节中使用 FSL 可作为一种替代方法,因为它能使 SBS 在可接受的范围内。该研究已获得沙特国王大学伦理委员会的批准。