Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of Er:YAG laser on enamel acid resistance. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy human enamel slabs were randomly divided into seven groups (n = 10): G1, Er:YAG laser (Key Laser 2, KaVo, Germany) 60 mJ, 2 Hz, 33.3 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2051, non-contact); G2, Er:YAG laser 80 mJ, 2 Hz, 44.4 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2051, non-contact); G3, Er:YAG laser 120 mJ, 2 Hz, 66.6 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2051, non-contact); G4, Er:YAG laser 64 mJ, 2 Hz, 20 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2055, contact); G5, Er:YAG laser 86.4 mJ, 2 Hz, 26.9 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2055, contact); G6, Er:YAG laser 135 mJ, 2 Hz, 42.2 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2055, contact); G7, control. After laser irradiation, samples were submitted to an acid challenge. For both the nos. 2051 and 2055 handpieces, irradiation was performed with a water cooled spray (5.0 ml/minutes). The calcium and phosphorous ions delivered from the tooth surface were quantified by atomic emission spectrometry, and morphological analysis of the enamel surface was performed under scanning electron microscopy. Kruskal-Wallis and multiple comparisons tests were applied to distinguish significant differences among the treatments (alpha = 5%). RESULTS: Groups G1, G2, and G4 presented decreased demineralization. The SEM evaluation revealed different surface alterations as a result of the different energies used. CONCLUSION: Lower energies can decrease enamel solubility without severe alterations of the enamel.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cecchini et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: