Microleakage of four different restorative glass ionomer formulations in class V cavities: Er:YAG laser versus conventional preparation
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 27, 2026
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Katleen I M Delmé1, Peter J Deman, Mieke A A De Bruyne
1Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontology, Ghent Dental Laser Center, Dental School, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium. katleen.delme@ugent.be
Objective:
To investigate microleakage in class V cavities following restoration with conventional glass-ionomer cements (CGICs) or resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGICs), following Er:YAG laser or conventional preparation.
Background Data:
The sealing ability of GICs in Er:YAG-lased cavities has not been studied extensively.
Methods:
Three hundred and twenty class V cavities were assigned to four groups: those in groups A and B were prepared using an Er:YAG laser, and those in groups C and D were conventionally prepared. In groups B and D the surface was additionally conditioned with cavity conditioner. Each group was subdivided according to the GIC used: groups 1 (Fuji II), 2 (Fuji IX), 3 (Fuji II LC) and 4 (Fuji VIII). After thermocycling, the specimens were immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution, sectioned oro-facially, and analyzed for leakage. The effect of the conditioner was analyzed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Results:
Significant differences between occlusal and gingival margins were found in all groups (p < 0.05) except B4, D3, and D4. Comparison of preparation methods (groups A-D) revealed significant differences at the occlusal margin in groups 1 and 3, but in all groups at the gingival margin (p < 0.05). Laser preparation without conditioning allowed more leakage (p < 0.05). Comparison of filling materials (groups 1-4) revealed significant differences in groups B and C at the occlusal margin, and in all groups at the gingival margin (p < 0.05). In these groups, laser-prepared cavities (with or without conditioning) restored with Fuji II LC and Fuji VIII showed the least leakage at both margins.
Conclusion:
RMGICs allowed less microleakage than CGICs. Complete marginal sealing was not achieved and conditioning is recommended.
