Tensile bond strength and SEM analysis of enamel etched with Er:YAG laser and phosphoric acid: a comparative study In vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Er:YAG laser has been studied as a potential tool for restorative dentistry due to its ability to selectively remove oral hard tissue with minimal or no thermal damage to the surrounding tissues. The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro the tensile bond strength (TBS) of an adhesive/composite resin system to human enamel surfaces treated with 37% phosphoric acid, Er:YAG laser (lambda=2.94 microm) with a total energy of 16 J (80 mJ/pulse, 2Hz, 200 pulses, 250 ms pulse width), and Er:YAG laser followed by phosphoric acid etching. Analysis of the treated surfaces was performed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to assess morphological differences among the groups. TBS means (in MPa) were as follows: Er:YAG laser + acid (11.7 MPa) > acid (8.2 MPa) > Er:YAG laser (6.1 MPa), with the group treated with laser+acid being significantly from the other groups (p=0.0006 and p= 0.00019, respectively). The groups treated with acid alone and laser alone were significantly different from each other (p=0.0003). The SEM analysis revealed morphological changes that corroborate the TBS results, suggesting that the differences in TBS means among the groups are related to the different etching patterns produced by each type of surface treatment. The findings of this study indicate that the association between Er:YAG laser and phosphoric acid can be used as a valuable resource to increase bond strength to laser-prepared enamel.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".