Comparison of sandblasting, laser irradiation, and conventional acid etching for orthodontic bonding of molar tubes

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorBerk, Nuket
dc.contributor.authorBasaran, Guevenc
dc.contributor.authorOezer, Toerun
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T17:08:05Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T17:08:05Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of the study was to determine if sandblasted and laser-irradiated enamel may be viable alternatives to acid etching for molar tube bonding. Seventy-seven molar teeth extracted for periodontal reasons were used. Seventy teeth underwent shear bond strength (SBS) testing and the remaining seven were examined under scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were also considered. An erbium, chromium-doped:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) laser was used for enamel etching. Sandblasted and laser-irradiated enamel surfaces with different power outputs (0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, and 2 W) were compared with conventional phosphoric acid etching. Descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation, and minimum and maximum values, were calculated for each group. Multiple comparisons of the SBS of different etching types were performed by analysis of variance testing. The chi-square test was used to evaluate differences in ARI scores between groups. Acid-etched, 1-, 1.5-, and 2-W laser irradiation groups demonstrated a clinically acceptable mean SBS (7.65 +/- 1.38, 6.69 +/- 1.27, 7.13 +/- 1.67, 7.17 +/- 1.69 MPa, respectively). Irradiation with an output of 0.5 and 0.75 W and sandblasting of the enamel showed a lower SBS than the other groups (2.94 +/- 1.98, 4.16 +/- 2.87, 2.01 +/- 0.64 MPa, respectively). SEM evaluation of 1, 1.5, and 2 W laser irradiation revealed similar etching patterns to acid etching. Sandblasting and 0.5, and 0.75 W laser etching were not able to etch enamel in preferential patterns. Laser irradiation at 1.5 and 2 W was able to etch enamel. More adhesive was left on the enamel surface with low-power laser irradiation. Sandblasting and low-power laser irradiation (0.5, 0.75, and 1 W) are not capable of etching enamel suitable for orthodontic molar tube bonding, but 1.5- and 2-W laser irradiation may be an alternative to conventional acid etching.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ejo/cjm103
dc.identifier.endpage189en_US
dc.identifier.issn0141-5387
dc.identifier.issn1460-2210
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.pmid18263892
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-41949111465
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage183en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm103
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/17190
dc.identifier.volume30en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000254683100011
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherOxford Univ Pressen_US
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Orthodontics
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subject[No Keyword]en_US
dc.titleComparison of sandblasting, laser irradiation, and conventional acid etching for orthodontic bonding of molar tubesen_US
dc.titleComparison of sandblasting, laser irradiation, and conventional acid etching for orthodontic bonding of molar tubes
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu