Comparison of total-etch, self-etch, and selective etching techniques on class V composite restorations prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur: a scanning electron microscopy study
Microscopy Research and Technique, ISSN: 1097-0029, Vol: 79, Issue: 10, Page: 998-1004
2016
- 2Citations
- 42Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations2
- Citation Indexes2
- CrossRef1
- Captures42
- Readers42
- 42
Article Description
The purpose of this study was to compare total-etch, self-etch, and selective etching techniques on the marginal microleakage of Class V composite restorations prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur. Class V cavities prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 30 premolars by Er:YAG laser or bur and divided into six groups. The occlusal margins were in enamel, and the cervical margins were in cementum. Group-1: bur preparation(bp)+Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB)+Filtek Z550 (FZ); Group-2: laser preparation(lp)+(ASB)+(FZ); Group-3: bp + Clearfil S3 Bond Plus (CSBP)+(FZ); Group-4: lp+(CSBP) (FZ); Group-5: bp + acid etching+(CSBP)+(FZ); Group-6: lp + acid etching+(CSBP)+(FZ). All teeth were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hr, and then thermocycled 1000 times (5–55°C). Five teeth from each group were chosen for the microleakage investigation, and two teeth for the scanning electron microscope evaluation. Teeth which were prepared for the microleakage test were immersed in.5% methylene blue dye for 24 hr. After immersion, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests (p <.05). More microleakage was observed in the cervical regions compared to the occlusal regions in Groups 3, 5, and 6, respectively (p <.05). There is no statistically significant difference in Groups 1, 2, and 4, in terms of cervical regions versus occlusal regions (p >.05). No significant differences were observed among any groups in terms of occlusal and cervical surfaces, separately (p >.05). Different etching techniques did not influence microleakage of Class V restorations prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84988358970&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22735; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27472905; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jemt.22735; https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22735; https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jemt.22735
Wiley
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know