Influence of Nd:YAG Laser on the Bond Strength of Self-etching and Conventional Adhesive Systems to Dental Hard Tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of Nd:YAG laser on the shear bond strength to enamel and dentin of total and self-etch adhesives when the laser was applied over the adhesives, before they were photopolymerized, in an attempt to create a new bonding layer by dentin-adhesive melting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One-hundred twenty bovine incisors were ground to obtain flat surfaces. Specimens were divided into two substrate groups (n=60): substrate E (enamel) and substrate D (dentin). Each substrate group was subdivided into four groups (n=15), according to the surface treatment accomplished: X (Xeno III self-etching adhesive, control), XL (Xeno III + laser Nd:YAG irradiation at 140 mJ/10 Hz for 60 seconds + photopolymerization, experimental), S (acid etching + Single Bond conventional adhesive, Control), and SL (acid etching + Single Bond + laser Nd:YAG at 140 mJ/10 Hz for 60 seconds + photopolymerization, experimental). The bonding area was delimited with 3-mm-diameter adhesive tape for the bonding procedures. Cylinders of composite were fabricated on the bonding area using a Teflon matrix. The teeth were stored in water at 37°C/48 h and submitted to shear testing at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min in a universal testing machine. Results were analyzed with three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA; substrate, adhesive, and treatment) and Tukey tests (α=0.05). ANOVA revealed significant differences for the substrate, adhesive system, and type of treatment: lased or unlased (p<0.05). The mean shear bond strength values (MPa) for the enamel groups were X=20.2 ± 5.61, XL=23.6 ± 4.92, S=20.8 ± 4.55, SL=22.1 ± 5.14 and for the dentin groups were X=14.1 ± 7.51, XL=22.2 ± 6.45, S=11.2 ± 5.77, SL=15.9 ± 3.61. For dentin, Xeno III self-etch adhesive showed significantly higher shear bond strength compared with Single Bond total-etch adhesive; Nd:YAG laser irradiation showed significantly higher shear bond strength compared with control (unlased). CONCLUSION: Nd:YAG laser application prior to photopolymerization of adhesive systems significantly increased the bond strength to dentin.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".