24 research outputs found

    Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er:YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite

    No full text
    This study evaluated the effect of tooth preparation method (diamond bur vs. Er:YAG laser) on the microleakage levels of glass ionomers and resin composite. Human permanent premolars (N = 80) were randomly divided into two groups (n = 40). Cavities on half of the teeth were prepared using diamond bur for enamel and carbide bur for dentin and the other half using Er:YAG laser. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups according to the restoration materials, namely (a) ChemFil Rock (CFR), (b) IonoluxAC (IAC), (c) EQUIA system (EQA) and one resin composite (d) AeliteLS (ALS) (n = 10 per group). Microleakage (μm) was assessed at the occlusal and gingival margins after dye penetration (0.5% basic fuchsine for 24 h). On the occlusal aspect, while the cavity preparation types significantly affected the microleakage for CFR (p = 0.015), IAC (p = 0.001) glass ionomer restorations, it did not show significant effect for glass ionomer EQA (p = 0.09) and resin composite ALS (p = 0.2). Er:YAG laser presented less microleakage compared to bur preparation in all groups except for EQA. On the gingival aspect, microleakage decreased significantly for CFR (p = 0.02), IAC (p = 0.001), except for EQA where significant increase was observed (p = 0.001) with the use of Er:YAG laser. Microleakage decrease was not significant at the gingival region between diamond bur and Er:YAG laser for ALS (p = 0.663). At the occlusal and gingival sites in all groups within each preparation method, microleakage level was not significant

    Dental and oral complications of lip and tongue piercings

    No full text
    Piercing of the tongue and perioral regions is an increasingly popular expression of body art, with more patients coming in for a routine check-up with tongue and/or lip piercings. Several complications of oral piercing have been reported, some of which are life-threatening. In the present clinical survey the prevalence of both tongue and lip piercing complications in oral health was assessed in a group of 50 patients. The most common dental problem registered was chipping of the teeth, especially in association with tongue piercing. Gingival recession was seen as a result of lip piercing with studs. Postprocedural complications included oedema, haemorrhage and infection. Therefore, dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons should be given more authority to advise patients with oral and facial piercings or those who plan to acquire this type of body art
    corecore