| Author/Year/ Type of study | Sample size | Objective of the study | Laser parameters | Comparison | Results |
|
Tzimas K. [9] et al. 2019
In vitro | 45 teeth of wisdom |
Comparison of cavities prepared by diamond bur with Er,Cr:YSGG
| Er,Cr:YSGG P = 6 W/F = 30 Hz Pulse duration: 140 μs Cooling: 60% air and 90% water Energy density: 70.77 J/cm2 For surface treatment: P = 4.5 W/F = 50 Hz Pulse duration: 140 μs Cooling: 60% air, 90% water Energy density: 31.85 J/cm2 | G1: diamond bur + 37% phosphoric acid for 30s. G2: diamond bur+ Er,Cr:YSGG laser for surface treatment. G3: Er,Cr:YSGG laser for cavity preparation without surface treatment. G4: preparation of the cavity by the Er,Cr:YSGG laser + phosphoric acid 37% for 30s for surface treatment. G5: Er,Cr:YSGG laser for cavity preparation and surface treatment. | -The use of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser is a valid alternative approach for cavity preparation. |
| Dönmez N. [10] et al. 2019
In vitro | 24 decayed molars | To study the micro-tensile strength (micro-TBSs) of four universal adhesive systems, applied in two different bonding techniques (etch/rinse and self-etch), to affected dentin irradiated with Er:YAG laser | Er:YAG Parameters used: P = 3.5 W Pulse duration = 300 μs F = 10 Hz Energy density: 44 J/cm2 Cooling: air and water spray | -MR: Clearfil Universal Bond > All Bond Universal
-SAM: Single Bond Universal (10 MDP monomer) > Prime & Bond One Select (without 10 MDP monomer).
-Prime & Bond One Select (without 10 MDP monomer) and Single Bond Universal (with 10 MDP monomer) similar in M&R or SAM mode. | -The caries removal technique and the universal adhesives used in M&R or SAM mode affect the bonding properties to the affected dentin.
-Irradiation with Erbium lasers causes a change in the chemical configuration of the tooth structure, producing acid-resistant surfaces.
-SAM or M&R universal adhesives can be used for adhesive restoration of decayed dentin after Er:YAG laser irradiation.
-Adhesives play an essential role in the bond strength of MDP-containing materials. |
| Bishnoi AK. [11] et al. 2019
In vitro
| 80 premolars | Evaluate the effect of Er:YAG cavity preparation on the bonding quality of SAM systems with and without HEMA | Er: YAG E: 490 mJ F = A5Hz | G1: 40 teeth (carbide bur-prepared cavity) ・ Subgroup A1 (G-Bond) ・ Subgroup A2 (Adper Easy One)
G2: 40 teeth (Er:YAG-prepared cavity) ・ Subgroup A2 (G-Bond) ・ Subgroup B2 (Adper Easy One) Then obturation with One-step self-etch―HEMA-free or HEMA-rich. | -The effect of the Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation did not show any performance in terms of adhesion when using the seventh-generation adhesives (Adper Easy One and G-Bond bonding agents) |
| Cebe F. [12] et al. 2017
| 10 decayed molars | To evaluate the effect of the Er:YAG laser on the bond strength of an M&R adhesive system to carious dentin on the cervical wall. | Er:YAG Parameters used: P = 3.5 W Pulse duration: 300 μs F = 10 Hz Energy density: 44 J/cm2 Cooling: air and water spray | G1: Bur-prepared cavity G 2: Laser Er:YAG-prepared cavity
The teeth were then restored with an M&R adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2) and a composite resin (Filtek Z250). | -No statistically significant difference was found between the Er:YAG laser and the bur-treated group with respect to the bonding properties.
-The Er:YAG laser treatment had no negative effect on the bonding performance of the total-etch adhesive system on the carious dentin of the cervical wall. |
| Chen ML. [13] et al. 2015 | 160 teeth | To evaluate the effect of pretreatments on the performance of all-in-one self-etching adhesives on Er:YAG laser prepared dentin. | Er:YAG Parameters used:
P = 4 W Pulse duration = 100 μs E = 200 mJ F = 20 Hz Energy density: 25.46 J/cm2 | 8 groups:
N = 20 for each group: −37% phosphoric acid for 15 s Or low fluence irradiation with Er:YAG laser and then laser on 4 mm diameter with Smart-2940 D Er:YAG laser. -G-Bond Plus (G) or Xeno V (X) self-etching adhesive was used for dentin bonding. -2 control groups: G BOND PLUS or XENO V without laser treatment | Er:YAG laser preparation does not compromise the effectiveness of one-step self-etch adhesives and phosphoric acid pretreatment.
Low-fluence Er:YAG [150 mJ; 10 Hz; short-pulse mode (SP, 300 μs); average power of 1.5 W; 19.10 J/cm2 energy delivered/pulse;10 ml/min water spray] can significantly increase tensile strength. |
| Ramos TM [3] et al. | 96 third molars extracted | To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the morphology of dentin showing erosion “acid etch erosion cycle: immersion in citric acid solution (0.05 M, PH = 2.3), for 10 min and six times a day for five days” and on the tensile strength (μTBS) of the adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond “SAM” and Single Bond “M&R”) to the dentin substrate. | Er:YAG: 60 mJ, 2 Hz, 0.12 W, 19.3 J/cm2
Er,Cr:YSGG: 50 mJ, 1.5 W, 30 Hz, 4.5 J/cm2, spray 70% eau et 65% air | G1: Polishing control / discs + SAM “Clearfil SE Bond” adhesive. G2: Diamond bur + SAM adhesive “Clearfil SE Bond” G3: Er:YAG laser (60 mJ, 2 Hz, 0.12 W, 19. 3 J/cm2) + SAM adhesive “Clearfil SE Bond” G4: Er,Cr:YSGG laser + “Clearfil SE Bond” SAM adhesive G5: Polishing control/discs + M&R “Single Bond” adhesive G6: Diamond bur + M&R “Single Bond” adhesive G7: Er:YAG + M&R “Single Bond” adhesive G8: Er,Cr:YSGG + M&R “Single Bond” adhesive |
Group G4 (Er,Cr:YSGG laser + SAM adhesive) showed the highest adhesion value.
Er,Cr:YSGG significantly increases the adhesion to eroded dentin. |
| Vohra F [14] et al. 2018 | 80 third human molars | To evaluate the surface treatment of dentin by phototherapy (Er,Cr-YSGG laser) in the presence of different adhesive systems and their shear strength as well as the percolation phenomena. | Er,Cr:YSGG | Group 1: 40 teeth treated with diamond bur -20 treated with MR -20 treated with SAM
Group 2: 40 teeth with Er,Cr YSGG laser: 50 Hz; 4.5 W; 60 s of application.
-20 treated by MR -20 treated by SAM | Adhesion strength Lowest: laser + SAM Highest: diamond bur + M&R
Laser Er,Cr:YSGG + M&R = favorable adhesion strength (comparable to that obtained by conventional methods: diamond bur + M&R adhesive) |
| Takada M [15] et al. 2015 | 70 teeth extracted | To evaluate the bond strengths obtained by using different adhesive systems on Er,Cr:YSGG laser prepared dentin | Er,Cr:YSGG
Parameters used:
For email: 3 W, 20 Hz, pulse duration 140 μs, 75% water spray and 85% air spray, 76.43 J/cm2 For dentin: 2 W, 20 Hz, pulse duration 140 μs, 75% water spray and 60% air spray, 50.96 J/cm2. | Each laser prepare enamel or dentin surface was treated with: Control group: two-step self-etch bond primer (SBP) and one-step self-etch bond/bond (SBB) + 10s photopolymerization, without prior laser treatment.
G1: SAM “SBB” + 10 s light cure G2: SAM “SBP” 20 s + drying + “SBB” adhesive + 10 s light curing. G3: phosphoric acid 40% + SAM “SBP” 20 s + adhesive “SBB” + photopolymerization 10 s G4: 40% phosphoric acid + 10% sodium hypochlorite for 90 s + Rinse and dry + “SBP” adhesive 20 s + “SBB” adhesive + 10 s light curing G5: All-in-one adhesive (TSB) 20 s + Air jet + Photo-curing 10 s G6: 40% phosphoric acid + 10% sodium hypochlorite for 90 s + Rinsing and drying + All-in-one adhesive (TSB) 20 s + Photo-curing 10 s | -Adherence strength:
Control group > than other groups
Laser and SAM = rotary bur prepared enamel
Phosphoric acid or phosphoric acid followed by sodium hypochlorite increased the bond strength of the composite resin to enamel and dentin prepared with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser. |
| Ahmed ZA [16] et al. 2015
| 21 healthy third molars were used | To evaluate the effect of three different adhesive systems on the shear strength of Er,Cr:YSGG laser prepared dentin composite resin. | Er,Cr:YSGG
3 W, 20 Hz, pulse duration 140 μs, 65% water spray and 70% air spray | G1: full-etch adhesive G2: two-step self-etch adhesive G3: all-in-one adhesive
Two layers of composite were applied to the dentin surfaces and light cured for 40 s. The specimens were placed in a special device mounted on a universal testing machine (digital dynamometer, IMADA CO., LTD, Japan), to evaluate the shear strength. | -All tested adhesive systems have relatively the same effect on the shear strength of the composite resin on the surface of Er,Cr:YSGG laser-irradiated dentin |
| Kallis A [17] et al. 2018 | 63 healthy human molars randomized into four groups (n = 15). | Evaluate the thickness and qualitative characteristics of the hybrid layer after two methods of cavity preparation, using an Er:YAG laser in QSP mode and conventional tungsten carbide burs.
To study the behavior of two different adhesion techniques using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems. | Er:YAG
2940 nm, 3.75 W, 15 Hz, 250 mJ, water spray 20 ml/min, in QSP mode | 2 groups prepared by Er:YAG laser
2 groups of tungsten carbide burs
Adhesion with GLUMA® 2 Bond (etching and rinsing) and ClearfilTM Universal Bond Quick (self-etching).
The thickness of the hybrid layer was measured with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). | -Higher hybrid layer in the group treated with laser and with the etching and rinsing technique. |
| Guven Y [18] et al. 2015 | 120 healthy human molars | Evaluate the shear strength (SBS) of a micro-hybrid composite resin bonded with three different adhesive systems to Er:YAG laser (EL) or burs prepared dentin surfaces.
Analyze the quality and ultrastructure of the adhesive-dentin interfaces by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). |
Er:YAG
200 mJ/20 Hz for enamel preparation and 80 mJ/10 Hz for dentin etching | G1: Er:YAG + Clearfil Tri-S Bond (S3) (universal adhesive) G2: Er:YAG + Adper SE Plus (SE) (two-step SAM) G3: Er:YAG + laser etching + Adper Single Bond 2 (all-in-one SAM adhesive) G4: Er:YAG laser + acid etching + Adper Single Bond 2 (all-in-one SAM adhesive) G5: Er:YAG laser + no etching + Adper Single Bond 2 (all-in-one SAM adhesive) G6: diamond bur + acid etch + Adper Single Bond 2 (all-in-one SAM adhesive) G7:diamond bur + Clearfil Tri-S (C3S) Bond (universal adhesive) G8: diamond bur + Adper SE Plus (SE) Bond (two-step SAM) | -Adhesion to dentin:
Er:YAG laser rotary bur preparation |
| Shadman N [19] et al. 2019
| 30 healthy human molars, | To compare the shear strength (SBS) of a universal adhesive (scotchbond) with different modes of etching to Er,Cr:YSGG laser prepared dentin and bur. | Er,Cr:YSGG | 3 groups: Prepared by bur and Er,Cr:YSGG laser (4 Watt and 5-Watt, 20 Hz, 96% water, 60% air, and 600-μm tip size).
Each group was randomly divided into 2 subgroups (M&R and SAM), and then the universal adhesive (scotchbond) was applied.
Composite cylinders were applied to the surfaces and photopolymerized. | -The shear strength of the universal adhesive (Scotchbond) is higher in the group prepared by bur and treated by etching and rinsing.
In the etch-and-rinse procedure, the shear strength of the universal adhesive in the 4 W laser-prepared group was higher than that in the 5 W laser-prepared group.
In addition, for the 4 W laser prepared group, the shear strength was higher when the etch-and-rinse surface treatment was performed compared to the self-etch surface treatment. |
| Jhingan P [20] et al. 2015 | 96 healthy human premolars | To compare and evaluate the shear strength of self-etch adhesives applied to cavities prepared by a diamond bur or Er,Cr:YSGG laser and the effect of prior acid etching on shear strength. | Er, Cr:YSGG
6W, 15Hz, 80% spray d’eau et 50% spray d’air | Group1: preparation with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser A1: Two-step self-etching adhesive for surface treatment (Clearfil SE Prime and Bond) 1b: Phosphoric acid 40% + Self-etching adhesive in two steps for surface treatment (Clearfil SE Prime and Bond) 1c: Phosphoric acid 40% + Universal adhesive (Clearfil S3) Group 2: Bur preparation with the same distribution of subgroups as group 1 Then all specimens were restored with a flowable composite (APX Flow). | -Adhesion is higher in the laser-prepared group than in the bur groups regardless of the type of adhesive used
Shear strength: Highest with two-step SAM adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) without prior acid etching -Lowest with the same adhesive but with acid etching. |