The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on February 8, 2008
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2008 30(2):183-189; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjm103
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison of sandblasting, laser irradiation, and conventional acid etching for orthodontic bonding of molar tubes
aran**
* Private Practice, Dentaform Health Center, Ankara
** Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Dicle University, Diyarbak
r, Turkey
Address for correspondence Dr Güvenç Baaran, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dicle University, Diyarbakr 21280, Turkey, E-mail: basaran{at}dicle.edu.tr
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The 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.