| Autor: |
Felemban O; Paediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia., Abdrabuh R; Paediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia., El Meligy O; Paediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia.; Paediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21521, Egypt., Farsi N; Paediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia., Bakry AS; Restorative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia.; Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21521, Egypt.; King Fahd Medical Research Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia., Abu Haimed T; Restorative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia. |
| Abstrakt: |
Despite considerable improvements in oral health, dental caries remains a public health issue. The most frequently used technique to remove caries is through rotating drills. New minimally invasive strategies were introduced into dental practice, such as the use of lasers to perform highly controlled tissue ablation while limiting pain and discomfort, as well as overcoming drill phobia. The objective was to assess and compare treatment with Er:YAG laser versus a conventional rotary treatment during cavity preparation in children with regard to bond interface quality. In a randomized trial using a split-mouth design, 40 (9-12 year-old) children with 80 carious primary molars were included. The cavity in one quadrant was treated conventionally using a bur, while the cavity in the other quadrant was prepared using an Er:YAG laser. Twenty restored teeth were extracted after one year. The SEM histological evaluation of bond interface results demonstrated no statistically significant differences between restorations placed following bur preparation and those placed following the Er:YAG laser preparation, and both treatments demonstrated promising results. Over a one-year period, no statistically significant differences in the bond interface quality were observed following class I cavity preparation in primary teeth with either Er:YAG laser or a conventional rotary bur. |
