Pulpal temperature increase with high-speed handpiece, Er:YAG laser and ultrasound tips

The aim of this study was to compare intrapulpal temperature increase produced by high-speed handpiece, Er:YAG laser and CVDentus ultrasound tips during cavity preparation. Thirty bovine mandibular incisors with an enamel/dentin thickness of 4 mm at buccal surface had their roots amputated and were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Mollica, Fernanda Brandão, Camargo, Fernanda Pelogia, Zamboni, Sandra Costa, Pereira, Sarina Maciel Braga, Teixeira, Symone Cristina, Nogueira Junior, Lafayette
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2008
País:Brasil
Institución:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
Repositorio:Journal of applied oral science (Online)
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:revistas.usp.br:article/3568
Acceso en línea:https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/3568
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Dental Pulp
Dental cavity preparation
Descripción
Sumario:The aim of this study was to compare intrapulpal temperature increase produced by high-speed handpiece, Er:YAG laser and CVDentus ultrasound tips during cavity preparation. Thirty bovine mandibular incisors with an enamel/dentin thickness of 4 mm at buccal surface had their roots amputated and were allocated to the following groups (n=10): Group I- high-speed handpiece; Group II- noncontact Er:YAG laser (250 mJ/4Hz); and Group III- CVDentus ultrasouns tips. All devices were used with water cooling. Class V cavities were prepared to a depth of 3.5 mm, measured with a periodontal probe. A type T thermocouple was placed inside the pulp chamber to determine the temperature increase (°C), which was recorded by a data acquisition system ADS 2000 IP (Lynx Technology) linked to a notebook computer. Data were analyzed statistically by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p=0.05). The mean temperature rises were: 1.10°C (±0.56) for Group I, 0.84°C (±0.55) for Group II, and 3.00°C (± 1.34) for Group III. There were no statistically significant differences (p>;0.05) between Groups I and II, but both of them differed significantly from Group III (p