SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1

Evaluation of Surface Roughness Produced By Orthophosphoric Acid And Er:Yag Laser

Ortofosforik Asit ve Er:Yag Lazerle Oluşturulan Yüzey Pürüzlülüklerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Melek Belevcikli(BULENT ECEVIT UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-9745-0360
Güngör Atak(Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi)0009-0000-2637-8931
Pages
39–46
Publication Date
2026-01-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: In both primary and permanent teeth, laser application resulted in greater changes in surface roughness compared with acid application.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the changes in surface roughness of primary and permanent teeth following acid and laser application.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: A total of 80 teeth—40 permanent molars and 40 primary molars—were used in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: In both primary and permanent teeth, laser application resulted in greater changes in surface roughness compared with acid application.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Daimi Dişlenme · Er: YAG Lazer · Fosforik Asit

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the changes in surface roughness of primary and permanent teeth following acid and laser application. Materials and Methods: A total of 80 teeth—40 permanent molars and 40 primary molars—were used in this study. The dentin surfaces were exposed using a separating disc. Primary teeth (Group I, Group II) and permanent teeth (Group III, Group IV) were each divided into two subgroups. Ortho-phosphoric acid was applied to Groups II and IV, while Er:YAG laser was applied to Groups I and III. The initial (Ra0) and post-treatment (Ra1) surface roughness values of each specimen were measured using a profilometer. Results: The Ra1 values of all groups (Group I: 7.63 ± 2.01 [7.31]; Group II: 3.17 ± 1.81 [2.89]; Group III: 6.37 ± 1.24 [6.14]; Group IV: 3.52 ± 1.98 [3.08]) were higher than their respective Ra0 values (Group I: 1.57 ± 1.16 [1.23]; Group II: 1.77 ± 1.24 [1.52]; Group III: 2.49 ± 2.14 [1.50]; Group IV: 2.01 ± 1.44 [1.40]). The change in surface roughness was greater in Group I (6.06 ± 1.91 [5.70]) compared to Group II (1.40 ± 1.47 [0.81]), and greater in Group III (3.88 ± 1.70 [4.11]) compared to Group IV (1.52 ± 1.52 [0.96]). Conclusion: In both primary and permanent teeth, laser application resulted in greater changes in surface roughness compared with acid application.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı asit ve lazer uygulamasının süt ve daimi dişlerde oluşturduğu yüzey pürüzlülüğündeki değişimlerin karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya 40 adet daimi molar, 40 adet süt molar olmak üzere toplamda 80 adet diş kullanılmıştır. Dişler bir separe yardımıyla dentin yüzeyi ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Süt dişleri (Grup I, Grup II) ve daimi dişler (Grup III, Grup IV) kendi içlerinde ikiye ayrılmıştır. Kendi içerisinde ikiye ayrılan süt dişleri ve daimi dişlere ortofosforik asit (Grup II, Grup IV) ve Er:YAG lazer (Grup I, Grup III) uygulanmıştır. Her bir örneğin başlangıç (Ra0) ve işlem gördükten sonra (Ra1) pürüzlülük değeri profilometre cihazı ile ölçülmüştür. Bulgular: Tüm grupların Ra1 değerlerinin (Grup I: 7.63±2.01 [7.31]; Grup II: 3.17±1.81 [2.89]; Grup III: 6.37±1.24 [6.14]; Grup IV: 3.52±1.98 [3.08]) Ra0 değerlerinden (Grup I:1.57±1.16 [1.23]; Grup II:1.77±1.24 [1.52]; Grup III:2.49±2.14 [1.50]; Grup IV: 2.01±1.44 [1.40]) daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Grup I’in yüzey pürüzlülük değişim miktarının (6.06±1.91 [5.70]) Grup II’den (1.40±1.47 [0.81]), Grup III’ün yüzey pürüzlülük değişim miktarının (3.88±1.70 [4.11]) Grup IV’ten (1.52±1.52 [0.96]) daha yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Süt ve daimi dişlerde lazer uygulamasının yüzey pürüzlülüğünde oluşturduğu değişim, asit uygulamasından daha fazladır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Belevcikli, M., Atak, G. (2026). Evaluation of Surface Roughness Produced By Orthophosphoric Acid And Er:Yag Laser. ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1633788

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. References1. Kidd E, Frencken J, Nyvad B, Splieth C, Opdam N. Classical restorative or the minimally invasive concept. In: Dental Caries: The Disease and its Clinical Management. 2015. p. 335–73.
  2. References2. Oliveira SS, Pugach MK, Hilton JF, Watanabe LG, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW Jr. The influence of the dentin smear layer on adhesion: a self-etching primer vs a total-etch system. Dent Mater 2003;19:758–67.
  3. References3. Silveira de Araújo C, Incerti da Silva T, Ogliari F, Meireles S, Piva E, Demarco F. Microleakage of seven adhesive systems in enamel and dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;7:26–33.
  4. References4. Peutzfeldt A, Nielsen LA. Bond strength of a sealant to primary and permanent enamel: phosphoric acid versus self-etching adhesive. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:240–4.
  5. References5. Da Rosa WLDO, Piva E, da Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015;43:765–76.
  6. References6. Akkaya B, Şener Y. The effects of different surface preparation techniques on enamel surface properties and bond strength. Eur Res Dent 2024;8:14-25.
  7. References7. Lee B-S, Lin P-Y, Chen M-H, Hsieh T-T, Lin C-P, Lai J-Y, et al. Tensile bond strength of Er,Cr:YSGG laser-irradiated human dentin and analysis of dentin–resin interface. Dent Mater 2007;23:570–8.
  8. References8. Sung E, Chenard T, Caputo AA, Amadeo M, Chung EM, Rizoiu IM. Composite resin bond strength to primary dentin prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG laser. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;30:45–50.
  9. References9. Uysal AGDD, Guler C. Laser in dentistry: a literature review. Atatürk Univ Dent Fac J 2012;2012:1–6.
  10. References10. Lenzi TL, Guglielmi CAM de A, Arana-Chavez VE, Raggio DP. Tubule density and diameter in coronal dentin from primary and permanent human teeth. Microsc Microanal 2013;19:1445–9.
  11. References11. Hayashi-Sakai S, Sakamoto M, Hayashi T, Sakai J, Shimomura-Kuroki J, Nashida T. Evaluation of permanent and primary enamel and dentin mineral density using micro-computed tomography. Oral Radiol 2019;35:29–34.
  12. References12. Chowdhary N, Subba Reddy VV. Dentin comparison in primary and permanent molars under transmitted and polarised light microscopy: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2010;28:167–72.
  13. References13. Wang JH, Yang K, Zhang BZ, Zhou ZF, Wang ZR, Ge X, et al. Effects of Er:YAG laser pre-treatment on dentin structure and bonding strength of primary teeth: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:316.
  14. References14. Villalobos-Tinoco J, Andretti F, Conner C, Rojas-Rueda S, Fischer NG, Pagan-Banchs M, et al. A narrative review and clinical study on Er:YAG laser debonding of ceramic and composite veneers. Biomimetics (Basel) 2025;10:295.
  15. References15. Fornaini C, Brulat N, Milia G, Rockl A, Rocca JP. The use of sub-ablative Er:YAG laser irradiation in prevention of dental caries during orthodontic treatment. Laser Ther 2014;23:173–81.
  16. References16. Fornaini C. Er:YAG laser for the aesthetic treatment of developmental enamel defects in frontal teeth: a case report. Laser Ther 2019;28:199–202.
  17. References17. Lin W, Shi T, Wang Y, Chen X, Zhao Y, Zhou L, et al. Effect of Er:YAG laser dentin pretreatment on composite bonding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2025;(prepublished-early access). PMID: 41114916.
  18. References18. Sattabanasuk V, Vachiramon V, Qian F, Armstrong SR. Resin– dentin bond strength as related to different surface preparation methods. J Dent 2007;35:467–75.
  19. References19. Cinnamon B. Investigation of adaptation and bond strength of bonding agents to dentin surface treated with Nd:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers. [Thesis]. İstanbul: Marmara University; 2005.
  20. References20. Cardenas AM, Siqueira F, Rocha J, Szesz AL, Anwar M, El-Askary F, et al. Influence of conditioning time of universal adhesives on adhesive properties and enamel-etching pattern. Oper Dent 2016;41:481–90.
  21. References21. Kakar S, Kanase A. Dentin bonding agents I: complete classification—a review. World J Dent 2013;2:367–70.
  22. References22. Wanderley RL, Monghini EM, Pecora JD, Palma-Dibb RG, Borsatto MC. Shear bond strength to enamel of primary teeth irradiated with varying Er:YAG energies and SEM of surface morphology. Photomed Laser Ther 2005;23:260–7.
  23. References23. Martínez-Insua A, Da Silva Domínguez L, Rivera FG, Santana-Penín UA. Differences in bonding to acid-etched or Er:YAG-laser-treated enamel and dentin surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:280–8.
  24. References24. Wang JH, Yang K, Zhang BZ, Zhou ZF, Wang ZR, Ge X, et al. Effects of Er:YAG laser pre-treatment on dentin structure and bonding strength of primary teeth: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20:316.
  25. References25. Vermelho PM, Freitas PM, Reis AF, Giannini M. Influence of Er:YAG laser irradiation settings on dentin-adhesive interfacial ultramorphology and dentin bond strength. Microsc Res Tech 2022;85:2943–52.
  26. References26. Ersahan S, Sabuncuoğlu F. Effect of surface treatment on enamel surface roughness. J Istanbul Univ Fac Dent 2016;50:1–8.
  27. References27. Liu M, Xu X, Liu Q, Zhang K, Xin P. Effect of various Er:YAG laser conditioning energies on dentin surface: micromorphological investigation and dentin-resin shear bond strength test. Lasers Med Sci 2023;38:1–11.
  28. References28. Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Yamada Y, Murakami Y, Matsumoto K. Microleakage of composite restorations in Er,Cr:YSGG laserand bur-prepared primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002;26:263–8.
  29. References29. Moshonov J, Stabholz A, Zyskind D, Sharlin E, Peretz B. Acidetched and Er:YAG laser-treated enamel for fissure sealants: a comparison of microleakage. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15:205–9.
  30. References30. Al-Habdan AH, Al-Rabiah R, Al-Busayes R. Shear bond strength of acid- and laser-conditioned enamel and dentine to composite resin restorations: an in vitro study. Clin Exp Dent Res 2021;7:331–7.
  31. References31. Firat E, Gurgan S, Gutknecht N. Microtensile bond strength of an etch-and-rinse adhesive after Er:YAG laser pretreatment with different pulse durations. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:15–21.
  32. References32. Perdigão J. New developments in dental adhesive systems. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2010;31:12–9.
  33. References33. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA. Bonding to tooth structure: a review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2009;21:341–52.
  34. References34. Lizarelli RdF, Moriyama LT, Jorge J, Bagnato VS. Comparative ablation rate of Er:YAG laser on enamel and dentin of primary and permanent teeth. Laser Phys 2006;16:849–58.
  35. References35. Osorio R, Aguilera FS, Otero PR, Romero M, Osorio E, García-Godoy F, et al. Primary dentin etching time, bond strength and ultrastructure of dentin surfaces. J Dent 2010;38:222–31.
  36. References36. Esteves-Oliveira M, de Guglielmi CA, Ramalho KM, Arana-Chavez VE, de Eduardo CP. Comparison of root dentin permeability and morphology after Nd:YAG, Er:YAG, and diode lasers. Lasers Med Sci 2010;25:755–60.
  37. References37. Ten Cate AR, Nanci A. Ten Cate’s Oral Histology: Development, Structure, and Function. 9th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2020.
  38. References38. Uzun A, Aykut-Yetkiner A. Effects of Er:YAG laser on mineral content of sound dentin in primary teeth. J Dent Sci 2014;9:313–8.
  39. References39. Eduardo CdeP, de Freitas PM, Esteves-Oliveira M. Mechanisms of Er:YAG laser ablation on dental hard tissues. Photomed Laser Surg 2010;28:S7–S13.
  40. References40. Wang X, Wang Y, Liu Y, et al. Dentin microstructure differences between primary and permanent teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 2012;22:223–30.