Effect of Nd:YAG and Er:YAG laser tooth conditioning on the microleakage of self-adhesive resin cement

Figures & data

Figure 1. Schematic presentation of class V preparation.

Table 1. Materials used in the study and their compositions.

	Manufacturer	Resin matrix	Filler content	Type	Lot Number
Embrace Wet Bond	GC, Corporation, Tokyo, Japan	Co-monomers (mono-,di-,andtri-functional methacrylatemonomers Automixsystem)	Barium,glass, ytterbiumtrifluoride,inertminerals. 36.6, 39.0%	Self-adhesive resin cement	180323

Figure 2. Diagram of microleakage evaluation criteria for class V cavity.

Figure 3. Representative stereomicroscopic images; a: no microleakage was detected (score 0, b: microleakage into the enamel portion of the cavity was detected (score 1), c: microleakage to the dentinal portion of the cavity without axial wall penetration was detected (score 2), d: microleakage into pulpal floor of the cavity was detected (score 3).

Table 2. Comparison of marginal microleakage scores in the study groups by Kruskal–Wallis test.

	Microleakage				Total	Mean Rank	Test statistic (P-value)
	0	1	2	3
Groups
Control
Count	5	11	2	0	18	30.22	9.26 (.010)
% within groups	27.8%	61.1%	11.1%	.0%	100.0%
Er:YAG
Count	13	4	1	0	18	19.19
% within groups	72.2%	22.2%	5.6%	.0%	100.0%
Nd:YAG
Count	5	8	3	2	18	33.08
% within groups	27.8%	44.4%	16.7%	11.1%	100.0%
Total
Count	23	23	6	2	54
% within groups	42.6%	42.6%	11.1%	3.7%	100.0%

Table 3. Pairwise comparisons of microleakage between the groups by the Dunn test.

	Test statistic	p Value
Control: Er:YAG	11.03	.022
Er:YAG: Nd:YAG	−13.89	.004
Control: Nd:YAG	−2.86	.553