Study of microleakage at class V cavities prepared by Er : YAG laser using rewetting surface treatment

Objective: This study was conducted to analyze microleakage in Class V cavity preparation, using rewetting (or not) just after burr or Er:YAG laser preparation of enamel and dentin walls in permanent teeth. Background Data: Several studies reported microleakage around composite restorations when cavity preparation was done or treated by Er:YAG laser. As the hybridized laser is removed when this laser is used to cut dental hard tissue, there is a need for new materials or techniques to minimize gaps and microleakage. Results: Primer solution showed significant effect in enamel and dentin, at the level of 5%, when Er:YAG laser was used as a cutting tool. Using primer solution after phosphoric acid in preparations with the laser, microleakage was similar in degree to when cavities were prepared with the burr. Conclusion: Re-wetting surface just after Er:YAG irradiation and chemical treatment with phosphoric acid using HEMA aqueous solution seems to improve the quality of bioattachment between the adhesive system and enamel/dentin, showing similarities between restoration behaviors independently of the cutting tool, whether burr or laser.

Referral letters in oral medicine: an approach for the general dental practitioner

The aim of this study was to analyze the contents of referral letters related to clinical history and reason for consultation. A total of 236 consecutive referral letters were evaluated. Analysis of the referral letters was based on key items concerning patient identification. chief complaint, previous consultation. laboratory investigation and use of drugs for the chief complaint. A database was organized (Epinfo 6.04) and the chi (2) test (a = 0.05) was applied to the results. of the 800 files examined. only 30%, (236) had a referral letter. of the 236 referral letters. 67% were from dentists, 22% from physicians and 11% from unidentified professionals. Patient age did not appear in 70%, of the letters and the chief complaint was mentioned only in 55%. The letters had no details such as description of the oral lesion (80%), anatomical site (34%), size (99%), symptoms (83%), or period of evolution (92%). Clinical diagnosis was not included in 84% of the letters. Less than 5% of the referral letters contained information about previous consultation and laboratory investigation. The chi (2) test showed significant differences for ail items of the referral letter. Referral letters did not satisfy minimal requirements about clinical history or reason for consultation. leading to failed communication among professionals. Based on this study, we suggest that standard letters are important to improve the quality of the letters, reducing the rate of omission of relevant items.