76) The mean bond strength in the Er:YAG laser pretreatment group was significantly lower compared to the FRC Postec posts control group (p < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the Radix Fiber posts groups (p = 0.680). |
PMID:23929564 DOI:10.1007/s10103-013-1412-4 |
2015 Lasers in medical science |
* Effect of Er:YAG laser pretreatment on bond strength of a composite core build-up material to fiber posts. |
- The study evaluated the micro push-out bond strength of resin material (Multicore Flow) to two types of fiber posts (FP), namely fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) Postec and Radix Fiber posts using Er:YAG laser pretreatment. FP were divided into four groups, two being control groups. Before the core build-up procedure, representative specimens from each group were chosen to determine the surface roughness (Ra) at three different areas using a contact profilometer, while after the procedure, 1.5-mm-thick discs were sectioned and the micro push-out method was used to assess the bond strength of the core build-up material to the fiber post in each group. Two-way analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis with the level of significance set at p < 0.05. Scanning electron microscopy was used to analyze the post surfaces after Er:YAG laser pretreatment and to classify the failure mode after loading. The type of pretreatment (p < 0.001) and an interaction between the pretreatment and type of post (p < 0.001) had a significant effect on the bond strength, while the type of post did not (p = 0.965). The mean bond strength in the Er:YAG laser pretreatment group was significantly lower compared to the FRC Postec posts control group (p < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the Radix Fiber posts groups (p = 0.680). Mean Ra values from the Er:YAG laser pretreatment groups were significantly higher compared to control groups (p < 0.001). Er:YAG laser pretreatment at tested parameters negatively affected the bond strength of Multicore to FP and cannot be recommended as a standard procedure. |
(1)49 *null* | (15)7 received | (29)3 II | (44)2 difference |
(2)33 was | (16)5 at | (30)3 after | (45)2 displayed |
(3)29 and | (17)5 for | (31)3 comprised | (46)2 dynamics-based |
(4)25 of | (18)5 the | (32)3 in | (47)2 exhibited |
(5)16 compared | (19)5 to | (33)3 when | (48)2 however, |
(6)12 A | (20)4 (p | (34)2 (30 | (49)2 improved |
(7)12 were | (21)4 B | (35)2 (n | (50)2 included |
(8)11 discussions | (22)4 C | (37)2 B, | (51)2 intervention |
(9)10 than | (23)4 differences | (38)2 III | (52)2 interventions |
(10)9 I | (24)4 or | (39)2 V | (53)2 interviews |
(11)8 had | (25)3 1, | (40)2 a | (54)2 patients |
(12)8 showed | (26)3 2 | (41)2 as | (55)2 presented |
(13)8 with | (27)3 4 | (42)2 contains | (56)2 that |
(14)7 1 | (28)3 A, | (43)2 demonstrated |
add keyword