Microleakage of class V after conventional and Er:YAG laser preparation

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of composite resin restorations using two different dentin adhesive systems prepared with diamond bur and different parameters of Er:YAG laser. Materials and Methods: Two hundred class V cavities were assigned to ten groups (n=20). Group1:Er:YAG(5 Hz,600 Mj)+Phosphoric Acid(PA)+AdperSingleBond2(ASB2) Group2:Er:YAG(10Hz,300Mj)+PA+ASB2Group3:Er:YAG(15Hz,200Mj)+PA+ASB2 Group4:Er:YAG(20Hz,150Mj)+PA+ASB2Group5:Diamondbur+PA+ASB2 Group6:Er:YAG(5Hz,600Mj)+AdperPromptL-Pop(APLP) Group7:Er:YAG(10Hz,300 Mj)+APLP Group8: Er:YAG(15 Hz,200 Mj)+APLP Group9: Er:YAG(20Hz,150Mj )+APLP Group10: Diamond bur+APLP. Cavities were restored with a nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme XT Body). After termocycling the specimens were stained with 0.5 % aqueous basic fuchsin dye and sectioned bucco-lingually. Dye penetration was scored. Data were analyzed using Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was used to compare occlusal and gingival scores.Results:Leakage was seen in all groups at both the occlusal and gingival margin. The Kruskal Wallis test showed statistically significant differences among the ten groups (P<0.001). The gingival margins had more microleakage than the occlusal margins (P<0.001) Pairwise analysis by the Mann-Whitney U-test was undertaken statistically significant differences (p<0.05) in microleakage were found between groups 3 and 5 (3>5), 5 and 7 (7>5), 7 and 8 (7>8) at the gingival margin, 3 and 6 (6>3), 3 and 7 (7>3), 4 and 6 (6>4), 4 and 7 (7>4) at the occlusal margin. Conclusion: It may be concluded that, for all groups, microleakage values were higher in gingival margins.The use of Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation with different parameters and different dentin adhesive systems influenced the marginal sealing of composite resin restorations.