The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 298575, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/298575

Research Article

Effect of a CO₂ Laser on the Inhibition of Root Surface Caries Adjacent to Restorations of Glass Ionomer Cement or Composite Resin: An In Vitro Study

L. C. Daniel,¹ F. C. Araújo,¹ B. R. Zancopé,² F. S. Hanashiro,³ M. Nobre-dos-Santos,² M. N. Youssef,1,3 and W. C. Souza-Zaroni¹

¹School of Dentistry, Cruzeiro do Sul University (UNICSUL), Avenida Doutor Ussiel Cirilo 225, 08060-070 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
²Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry of Piracicaba, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Avenida Limeira 901, P.O. Box 52, 13414-903 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
³Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), Avenida Professor Lineu Prestes 2227, Cidade Universitária, 05508-900 São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Received 1 June 2015; Accepted 3 August 2015

Academic Editor: Samir Nammour

Copyright © 2015 L. C. Daniel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

This study investigated the effect of CO₂ laser irradiation on the inhibition of secondary caries on root surfaces adjacent to glass ionomer cement (GIC) or composite resin (CR) restorations. 40 dental blocks were divided into 4 groups: G1 (negative control): cavity preparation + adhesive restoration with CR; G2: (positive control) cavity preparation + GIC restoration; G3: equal to group 1 + CO₂ laser with 6 J/cm²; G4: equal to group 2 + CO₂ laser. The blocks were submitted to thermal and pH cycling. Dental demineralization around restorations was quantified using microhardness analyses and Light-Induced Fluorescence (QLF). The groups showed no significant differences in mineral loss at depths between 20 μm and 40 μm. At 60 μm, G2 and G3 ≠ G1, but G4 = G1, G2 and G3. At 80 μm, G4 ≠ G1, and at 100 μm, G4 = G2 = G1. At 140 and 220 μm, G2, G3, and G4 = G1. The averages obtained using QFL in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0.637, 0.162, 0.095, and 0.048, respectively. QLF and microhardness analyses showed that CO₂ laser irradiation reduced mineral loss around the CR restorations but that it did not increase the anticariogenic effect of GIC restorations.

1. Introduction

Clinical studies showed that secondary caries lesions are the most common cause for restoration replacement [1–4]. These lesions are even more serious when the restorative procedure is performed on root surfaces because of the patient’s difficulty in performing oral hygiene correctly and the difficulty in isolating the operative field and accessing the lesion [5]. Therefore, new methods, such as irradiation of tooth surfaces using different types of lasers, were studied to control the recurrence of caries in this region.

Root caries are more frequent in elderly patients [6–8], and these lesions are generally related to a variety of factors, such as decreased salivary flow, xerostomic medication, periodontal disease, and motor difficulties, which often prevent proper cleaning.

The root surface is rougher than enamel, which facilitates the formation of biofilm in the absence of proper oral hygiene. Carious lesions progress rapidly in this area because of the difference in chemical composition and structure of the mineral tissues of the teeth. The cementum and dentin have a critical pH value for dissolution of approximately 6.7 [9], but the critical pH for enamel is 5.5.

Konishi et al. [10] demonstrated that caries removal using CO₂ laser irradiation produced cavity walls around restorations that were more resistant to caries than those produced using conventional mechanical removal. Klein et al. [11] also showed that irradiation of the enamel around composite resin restorations using a CO₂ laser inhibited demineralization of the enamel adjacent to the cavity preparation.

Souza-Zaroni et al. [12] showed that irradiation of the root surface using CO₂ laser power densities of approximately 4.0 to 6.0 J/cm² promoted the inhibition of demineralization on the root surface. Similarly, de Melo et al. [13] observed that a CO₂ laser effectively inhibited the demineralization of root surfaces adjacent to composite restorations at energy densities of 5.0 and 6.0 J/cm².

However, existing studies in the literature have not focused on the effect of irradiation of cavosurface angles using a CO₂ laser on cavity preparations restored with known anticariogenic materials, such as glass ionomer cement.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

This study was conducted after being approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Cruzeiro do Sul University (CE/UCS-135/2012). The factors studied were the treatment conducted on the cavosurface margins of root cavities with or without irradiation using a CO₂ laser and the restorative material (glass ionomer cement or composite resin).

Cavity preparations in group 1 (negative control) were performed on ten tooth blocks using a diamond bur number 2294 (KG Sorensen, Barueri, São Paulo, Brazil) in a high-speed turbine. The blocks were submitted to phosphoric acid etching and an adhesive system was applied. The blocks were restored with a resin composite. Cavities in group 2 (positive control) were prepared on ten tooth blocks using a diamond bur mounted in a high-speed turbine. The cavities were restored with glass ionomer cement. Ten tooth blocks with cavity preparations were performed in group 3 using a diamond bur mounted in a high-speed turbine. The cavosurface margins were submitted to surface treatment with a CO₂ laser at an energy density of 6 J/cm². The margins were etched with phosphoric acid, and an adhesive system was applied. The margins were restored with resin composite. Cavities in group 4 were prepared on ten tooth blocks using a diamond bur mounted in a high-speed turbine, and the cavosurface margins were surface-treated with irradiation using a CO₂ laser at an energy density of 6 J/cm². The cavities were restored with glass ionomer cement.

2.2. Preparation of Specimens

Bovine incisors were stored in a 0.1% thymol solution for a minimum of 30 days after cleaning with periodontal curettes, followed by prophylaxis with a Robinson brush at low speed using aluminum paste (5 μm) for 30 s and two 30-s ultrasound baths. The teeth were examined under a stereoscopic loupe at 10x magnification. Incisors with cracks or structural abnormalities were discarded, and the remaining teeth were kept in a humid medium at 4°C until use.

The teeth were fixed in a cutting machine to obtain the root surface specimens. The coronal portion 1 mm beyond the cement-enamel junction was removed and discarded. The root portion of each tooth was longitudinally sectioned to obtain two specimens (one from the buccal and one from the lingual surface). The sections were identified to avoid the use of two specimens from the same tooth in the same group.

2.3. Cavity Preparation

A number 2294 cylindrical diamond bur (KG Sorensen, Barueri, Brazil) in a high-speed turbine with air-water spray was used. A standard cavity with a diameter of 1.7 ± 1 mm and depth of 1.5 mm was prepared.

2.4. Restorative Procedure

Prophylaxis was performed after the cavity preparations in all the dental root blocks using a pumice stone paste (SS White) and distilled and deionized water. The cavities were washed with a water and air spray and air dried.

Preparations in groups 1 and 3 were restored with a resin composite (Filtek Z 250, 3 M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) using 37% phosphoric acid etching and Single Bond 2 adhesive (3 M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) before insertion of the resin composite. The preparations in groups 2 and 4 were restored using conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Ketac Fil Plus, 3 M ESPE, St. Paul, MN) with the aid of a Centrix syringe to avoid the inclusion of bubbles within the restorative material. Subsequently, the GIC was covered with a polyester strip, and a glass slide and weight (500 g) were placed on top for 7 min to standardize the restorations.

The materials were manipulated, and the cavities were restored in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. The dental blocks were stored for 24 h at 37°C in a 100% humid environment at the conclusion of the restorative procedure, and the blocks were polished using a sequence of aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex, 3 M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA).

2.5. Quantification of Light-Induced Fluorescence (QLF)

The prevention of caries was also quantified using light-induced fluorescence (QLF).

The area of the root surface that would receive the proposed treatments in the area around the restorations was delimited (cavosurface margins of the preparations made on the root surface). Each specimen was completely covered with acid-resistant varnish (colorless cosmetic nail polish), except a 4 × 4 mm area of exposed root (window) whose center contained the cavity that was restored with composite resin or glass ionomer cement, which was 1.6 mm in diameter.

Images were taken of all of samples, first with only the restorations (baseline) and again after thermal and pH cycling (final). Images of all samples were captured using the Inspektor Pro intraoral fluorescence camera (Inspektor Dental Care BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). The samples were exposed to blue-violet light, which peaked in intensity at 404 nm. The emitted fluorescence of the dental structure was observed through a high-pass yellow filter ( nm) and recorded by the camera device. The camera was fixed to a support, and the sample surface remained perpendicular to the device hand piece, where the blue light source and the fluorescence camera were located. The distance between the sample surface and the apparatus hand piece was adjusted to obtain the best focus.

Samples that were stored in flasks containing distilled water had their dentin surface dried with absorbent paper before fluorescence analyses.

Samples were placed on a plastic disk, and the images were obtained in a dark room. An image was captured for each sample to enable the subsequent evaluations of fluorescence loss.

The images were examined using Inspektor Pro version 2.0.0.32 software (Inspektor Dental Care BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), and the values of Delta () were calculated assuming a 5% threshold. Therefore, variations in fluorescence between the sound and demineralized dentin that were smaller than 5% were disregarded. A single examiner performed all analyses using a set of standard rules for image analysis to ensure the reliability of the measurements [14].

2.6. Cavosurface Angle Treatment Using a Pulsed CO₂ Laser

Irradiation of the cavosurface margins of root surface preparations was performed using a pulsed CO₂ laser at a wavelength of 10.6 μm (UM-L30, Union Medical Engineering Co., Yangju-si, Gyeonggi-Do, Korea—FAPESP CEPID/CEPOF Project, process number 98/14270-8). The selection of the irradiation parameters was based on a previous study by Souza-Zaroni et al. [12], which was also conducted on root surfaces.

The specimens were irradiated at a fixed repetition rate of 50 Hz with a pulse duration of 10 ms on and 10 ms off, and a beam diameter of 0.3 mm. The power was 0.8 W. The power set on the appliance was confirmed using a power meter (Scientech 373 Model: 37-3002, Scientech, Inc., Boulder, CO, USA), and the mean power measured was 0.42 W. The energy density under these irradiation conditions was approximately 6 J/cm². Irradiation was performed with the active point of the laser perpendicular to the tooth surface at a distance of 1 cm for a period of 10 s, and the speed of lasing movement was 2 mm/s.

2.7. Thermal Cycling

The main objective of this procedure was to expose the restorative material to a high thermal challenge. All the groups in the thermal cycling process were stored in tulle bundles with each containing one group, which were submitted to 1,000 cycles. Each cycle consisted of immersion in distilled and deionized water for 60 s at a temperature of 5 ± 1°C and a temperature of 55 ± 1°C for an additional 60 s. Temperatures in the thermal cycling machine remained constant.

2.8. pH Cycling

We used the model described by Kawasaki and Featherstone [15] and modified by Souza-Zaroni et al. [12] to perform pH cycling. The pH cycling was performed for 5 days. The root specimens were immersed for 4 h/day in the demineralizing solution and the remineralizing solution for approximately 20 h/day. The specimens were washed for 10 s with deionized water twice daily (before and after immersion in the demineralizing solution) and dried with absorbent paper during this period. The specimens remained in the remineralizing solution for 2 days (corresponding to the days of the weekend) after the fifth day.

The specimens were kept individually in the demineralizing solution containing 2.0 mmol/L Ca and 2.0 mmol/L P in 75 mmol/L acetate buffer, pH 4.8. The remineralizing solution contained 1.5 mmol/L Ca, 0.9 mmol/L P, and 150 mmol/L KCl in 20 mmol/L Tris buffer, pH 7.0. The chemical composition of this solution was near the level of saturation of the apatite minerals found in saliva, and it was similar to the solution by Ten Cate and Duijsters [16]. Both solutions contained thymol crystals to prevent bacterial growth, and solutions were prepared using the same reagents as sources of calcium and phosphate. The quantities of 6.25 and 3.12 mL/mm² of de- and remineralizing solutions were used, respectively, per treatment area. The specimens remained in an oven set at 37°C during the entire process, except the intervals of washing and alternating solutions. Specimens in the pH cycling were washed with jets of distilled and deionized water for 10 s, dried with absorbent paper, and kept in a closed and humid ambient environment with undercooling until they were prepared for microhardness analyses.

2.9. Cross-Sectional Microhardness Analysis

Specimens were sectioned in the center of the window of exposed dentin after the pH cycling using a precision cutting machine (Labcut, 1010, Extec, USA) and a diamond disk with a thickness of 0.3 mm and undercooling. One-half of each specimen was selected and positioned in the center of a semirigid plastic tube (sample cups). The specimen was embedded in an acrylic resin that was poured over it, and the internal (sectioned) part of the specimen was exposed. The plastic tubes were removed after resin polymerization, and the specimens were polished with water abrasive papers in a decreasing order of grit (numbers 600 and 1000) for 1 and 5 min, respectively. Felt disks and a 6 μm diamond paste (2 min) and a 3 μm diamond paste (4 min) were used after abrasive paper polishing. All specimens were submitted to an ultrasound bath of distilled and deionized water for 3 min between changes of abrasive papers and between the pastes/suspensions with common liquid detergent diluted in water for 5 min. The specimens were washed abundantly under distilled and deionized water and stored in a closed and humid environment with undercooling until use.

The microhardness test was performed to verify the presence or absence of demineralization on the root surface adjacent to the tooth/restoration interface.

The blocks were visualized with the aid of a monitor. Fourteen indentations were made on each dental block at different points on the root surface adjacent to the tooth/restoration interface of each tooth at a standardized distance for all of the restorations evaluated.

Analyses were performed using the microhardness tester HMV-2000 (Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) and the Knoop-type penetrator with a 5-g load and a 15-s application duration. Indentations were made longitudinally on the cut faces with the long axis of the diamond indenter parallel to the external portion of the root surface. The indentations were located 100 μm and 3 mm from the tooth/restoration interface and were 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 140, and 220 μm in depth from the cavosurface margins (tooth external surface) in the direction of the pulp tissue (adapted from Klein et al. [11]).

2.10. Statistical Analysis

The SPSS program was used for data analyses. The presuppositions necessary for the analysis of variance (ANOVA) were verified. After ANOVA, multiple comparisons of the means were performed using the Games and Howell test at a 5% level of significance. This parametric test is indicated for deviations from normality and homogeneity. The Games and Howell test was performed for each pair of averages (“pairwise”) with the error set for each comparison.

3. Results

This work had two variation factors, the treatment performed on the cavosurface margins of the preparations on the root surface (with or without CO₂ laser irradiation) and the material used to restore the cavities (glass ionomer cement or composite resin). The variation factors were analyzed using two response variables, the loss of fluorescence using the QLF technique, which is represented by the value of Delta (Delta = percentage loss of fluorescence per square millimeter), and the mineral loss values, which were calculated as the difference between the Knoop microhardness values of the healthy area (3 mm away from the tooth/restoration interface) and the microhardness values of the decayed area (100 μm interface) at different depths from the surface of the tooth.

3.1. QLF

Table 1 presents the mean QLF values of the surface treatment factors. The negative control group was significantly different from the other groups and presented the lowest Delta value. The G3 and G4 groups were not statistically significantly different, but G3 was similar to G2. Higher Delta values were obtained for G2 than for the groups that received laser irradiation (G3 and G4), which demonstrates that the specimens in G2 lost less fluorescence.

Table 1: QF means for all groups tested.

Groups
Means
SD
% inhibition

G1: negative control
−0.637a
±0.33
—

G2: GIC
−0.048c
±0.04
92.46

G3: laser
−0.095bc
±0.09
85.09

G4: GIC + laser
−0.162b
±0.08
74.57

Similar letters indicate statistical similarity. SD: standard deviation.

3.2. Microhardness Analysis

Table 2 presents the mean mineral loss values of the surface treatment factors. The depths of 20 to 40 μm were statistically similar in all groups. G2, G3, and G4 were similar at the depth of 60 μm, but G4 was not significantly different from G1. However, G3 was higher than the G1 and G4 groups at the depth of 100 μm, but it was similar to G1. The G2, G3, and G4 groups were similar but higher than G1 at the depths of 80, 140, and 220 μm.

Table 2: Microhardness analysis means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for all groups tested (similar letters indicate statistical similarity).

Groups
Depths

20 μm
40 μm
60 μm
80 μm
100 μm
140 μm
220 μm

M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD

G1: control
17.69
4.04
18.33
3.88
21.54
4.47b
24.42
5.43b
24.88
5.35c
26.06
5.85b
28.12
7.48b

G2: GIC
15.62
7.06
16.47
6.26
14.62
3.56a
14.79
3.90a
15.61
4.69ab
14.90
4.42a
14.34
4.23a

G3: laser
12.83
5.62
13.28
4.11
12.71
3.07a
12.67
4.18a
11.90
2.56a
12.51
3.27a
13.44
4.24a

G4: GIC + laser
14.15
5.22
16.00
6.86
12.21
3.43ab
17.08
7.38a
18.93
7.56bc
18.40
7.01a
17.66
8.22a

4. Discussion

Fluoride is a well-documented anticariogenic product in the literature. The mechanisms that characterize the cariostatic effects of fluoride include reduction of demineralization and increase of remineralization, but the mechanisms also include interference of film and plaque formation and the inhibition of bacterial growth and metabolism [17–19].

A wide variety of vehicles release fluoride into the oral cavity, including mouthwashes, toothpastes, and fluoride-releasing restorative materials [20–23]. Fluoride released from dental restorative materials affects caries formation through all the mechanisms mentioned above, which reduce or prevent demineralization and promote the remineralization of hard dental tissues [24].

There are various dental restorative materials available on the market that contain fluoride, including glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass ionomer, polyacid-modified composite, composite resin, and amalgam alloys. These products vary in their ability to release fluoride because of their different matrixes and setting mechanisms. However, it is assumed that the antibacterial and cariostatic properties of these restorative materials are associated with the amount of fluoride released.

Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) to prevent the occurrence of secondary caries on root surfaces [21–23, 25, 26]. This material showed an inhibition rate of 92.46% in QLF analysis, and it was superior to all other experimental groups, including the group that was irradiated with the CO₂ laser. However, the GIC group was always higher than the control group in microhardness analyses, but it did not differ from the laser-irradiated groups.

The detection of root surface demineralization using a QLF system was demonstrated previously in in vitro and in vivo studies [27, 28]. Van der Veen [28] reported that the QLF system detects root surface lesions that are at least 80 μm deep.

The rate of inhibition in our study using the QLF system was higher than previously reported in the literature. Therefore, caries lesions in dentin and cementum root surfaces adjacent to Class V restorations were reduced by 54–63% (glass ionomer), 20–53% (resin-modified glass ionomer), or 14–35% (compomer), compared to nonfluorinated control materials [20, 26, 29–31].

GIC promotes the release of approximately 10–50 times more fluoride than fluoridated composites [32]. Materials, such as resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and polyacid-modified resin composite (RCMP), have intermediate cariostatic effects [22, 25].

The assessment of the extent of the cariostatic effect on root surface by measuring the microhardness demonstrated the action of GIC to be 220 μm. Hara et al. [33] found that a fluoride-containing composite and a compomer exhibited no cariostatic effect, but the extent of the cariostatic effect of conventional glass ionomer cement was observed to be 300 μm and 150 μm for the resin-modified glass ionomer.

The inhibition of demineralization around GIC restorations was not increased, but the CO₂ laser promoted the cariostatic effect around cavities restored with conventional composite resin. The inhibition rate of this group was approximately 85% in the QLF analysis. This finding is greater than that of Gao et al. [34], who reported that the reducing of root surface demineralization using a 10.6 μm CO₂ laser at an energy density of 1.14 J/cm² was 29.8%. Souza-Zaroni et al. [12] showed a reduction of demineralization of the root surface of 17.05 and 20.59% using a 10.6 μm CO₂ laser and energy densities of 5 and 6 J/cm², respectively. De Melo et al. [13] reported that the highest rate of inhibition achieved around composite restorations was 29.21%.

The mechanism of laser irradiation interactions with dental tissues in the absence of fluoride is mainly related to the temperature rise after absorption. In general, irradiation of the dentin using a CO₂ laser causes changes in both the mineral portion and the organic matrix. The carbonate content can be reduced or eliminated depending on the energy applied, and crystallinity can be increased [35, 36]. A reduction in collagen content, loss of water, and formation of bands of amorphous carbon were also observed [37]. However, the reduction of carbonate and changes in the phases of hydroxyapatite that occur between 600 and 900°C are related to a decrease in the solubility of teeth after laser irradiation [35, 36, 38]. These tissue modifications are related to temperature, and not all laser irradiation conditions cause heating in the range that precisely positively changes the tissue to make it more resistant to decay.

Favorable results using the CO₂ laser were observed by other authors who measured the dissolution of calcium and phosphorus [39–41] and lesion depth [34]. However, most previous studies were conducted using a CO₂ laser emitting in a continuous mode, which is not the safer condition for the irradiation of vital teeth [35]. Only Esteves-Oliveira et al. [42] used a CO₂ laser with or without APF gel at energy densities of 8 and 11 J/cm² to achieve favorable results with the association of 11 J/cm² laser irradiation and APF gel. These results also suggest a synergistic effect of this association, but the inhibition rate was approximately 15%.

Several recent studies [43–45] failed to find any increase in the acid resistance of dentin after irradiation with CO₂ laser. Therefore, the positive results in this study should provide a stimulus to study new associations between the use of laser irradiation and fluoride-releasing materials to enable the optimization of additional tools for the prevention of root caries.

5. Conclusion

CO₂ laser with  μm was effective in the reduction of mineral loss around the composite resin restorations on root surfaces; however it did not increase the anticariogenic effect of glass ionomer restorations. In this way, CO₂ laser can be a resource in the prevention of secondary caries lesions on elderly population.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (Process no. 2010/01863-4). The authors thank the Special Laboratory on Lasers in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, São Paulo University (LELO-FOUSP) for allowing the use of the CO₂ laser device.

References

R. J. Elderton and N. M. Nuttall, “Variation among dentists in planning treatment,” British Dental Journal, vol. 154, no. 7, pp. 201–206, 1983.

L. V. Foster, “Validity of clinical judgments for the presence of seconadary caries associated with defective amalgam restorations,” British Dental Journal, vol. 177, pp. 89–93, 1994.

A. Jokstad, I. A. Mjör, and V. Qvist, “The age of restorations in situ,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 234–242, 1994.

I. A. Mjör and V. Qvist, “Marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 25–30, 1997.

S. L. Creanor, L. A. Awawdeh, W. P. Saunders, R. H. Foye, and W. H. Gilmour, “The effect of a resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material on artificially demineralised dentine caries in vitro,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 26, no. 5-6, pp. 527–531, 1998.

S. O. Griffin, P. M. Griffin, J. L. Swann, and N. Zlobin, “Estimating rates of new root caries in older adults,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 83, no. 8, pp. 634–638, 2004.

D. Locker, “Incidence of root caries in an older Canadian population,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 403–407, 1996.

B. A. Thompson, “Your backbone is important to your team,” Journal—Oklahoma Dental Association, vol. 95, p. 26, 2004.

P. M. M. Hoppenbrouwers, F. C. M. Driessens, and J. M. P. M. Borggreven, “The mineral solubility of human tooth roots,” Archives of Oral Biology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 319–322, 1987.

N. Konishi, D. Fried, M. Staninec, and J. D. B. Featherstone, “Artificial caries removal and inhibition of artificial secondary caries by pulsed CO₂ laser irradiation,” The American Journal of Dentistry, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 213–216, 1999.

A. L. L. Klein, L. K. A. Rodrigues, C. P. Eduardo, M. N. Dos Santos, and J. A. Cury, “Caries inhibition around composite restorations by pulsed carbon dioxide laser application,” European Journal of Oral Sciences, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 239–244, 2005.

W. C. Souza-Zaroni, A. C. P. Freitas, F. S. Hanashiro, C. Steiner-Oliveira, M. Nobre-Dos-Santos, and M. N. Youssef, “Caries resistance of lased human root surface with 10.6 μm CO₂ laser-thermal, morphological, and microhardness analysis,” Laser Physics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 537–543, 2010.

J. B. de Melo, F. S. Hanashiro, W. Steagall Jr. et al., “Effect of CO₂ laser on root caries inhibition around composite restorations: an in vitro study,” Lasers in Medical Science, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 525–535, 2014.

D. E. Gerard, D. Fried, J. D. B. Featherstone, and G. H. Nancollas, “Influence of laser irradiation on the constant composition kinetics of enamel dissolution,” Caries Research, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 387–392, 2005.

K. Kawasaki and J. D. B. Featherstone, “Effects of collagenase on root demineralization,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 588–595, 1997.

J. M. Ten Cate and P. P. E. Duijsters, “Alternating demineralization and remineralization of artificial enamel lesions,” Caries Research, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 201–210, 1982.

O. Fejerskov and B. H. Clarkson, “Dynamics of caries lesion formation,” in Fluoride in Dentistry, O. Fejerskov, J. Ekstrand, and B. A. Burt, Eds., pp. 187–213, Munksgaard, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1996.

I. R. Hamilton and G. H. W. Bowden, “Fluoride effects on oral bacteria,” in Fluoride in Dentistry, O. Fejerskov, J. Ekstrand, and B. A. Burt, Eds., pp. 230–251, Munksgaard, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1996.

J. M. ten Cate and J. D. M. Featherstone, “Physicochemical aspects of fluoride—enamel interactions,” in Fluoride in Dentistry, O. Fejerskov, J. Ekstrand, and B. A. Burt, Eds., pp. 252–272, Munksgaard, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1996.

P. Dionysopoulos, N. Kotsanos, Y. Papadogiannis, and A. Konstantinidis, “Artificial caries formation around fluoride-releasing restorations in roots,” Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 814–820, 1998.

L. E. Tam, G. P.-L. Chan, and D. Yim, “In vitro caries inhibition effects by conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 4–14, 1997.

P. N. R. Pereira, S. Inokoshi, and J. Tagami, “In vitro secondary caries inhibition around fluoride releasing materials,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 26, no. 5-6, pp. 505–510, 1998.

P. N. R. Pereira, S. Inokoshi, T. Yamada, and J. Tagami, “Microhardness of in vitro caries inhibition zone adjacent to conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements,” Dental Materials, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 179–185, 1998.

A. T. Hara, C. P. Turssi, M. Ando et al., “Influence of fluoride-releasing restorative material on root dentine secondary caries in situ,” Caries Research, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 435–439, 2006.

B. J. Millar, F. Abiden, and J. W. Nicholson, “In vitro caries inhibition by polyacid-modified composite resins (‘compomers’),” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 133–136, 1998.

K. J. Donly and C. Grandgenett, “Dentin demineralization inhibition at restoration margins of Vitremer, Dyract and Compoglass,” American Journal of Dentistry, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 245–248, 1998.

Ö. Durmusoglu, D. A. Tağtekin, and F. Yanikoğlu, “Clinical evaluation of demineralization and remineralization of intact root surface lesions in the clinic by a quantitative light-induced fluorescence system,” Lasers in Medical Science, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 397–402, 2012.

M. H. van der Veen, Quantification of root surface carious lesions [Ph.D. thesis], Groningen University, Groningen, The Netherlands, 1995.

P. Dionysopoulos, N. Kotsanos, E. Koliniotou-Koubia, and K. Tolidis, “Inhibition of demineralization in vitro around fluoride releasing materials,” Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1216–1222, 2003.

E. H. Gonzalez, A. U. J. Yap, and S. C. Y. Hsu, “Demineralization inhibition of direct tooth-colored restorative materials,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 578–585, 2004.

C. Francci, T. G. Deaton, R. R. Arnold, E. J. Swift Jr., J. Perdigao, and J. W. Bawden, “Fluoride release from restorative materials and its effects on dentin demineralization,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 78, no. 10, pp. 1647–1654, 1999.

J. Arends, G. E. H. M. Dijkman, and A. G. Dijkman, “Review of fluoride release and secondary caries reduction by fluoridating composites,” Advances in Dental Research, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 367–376, 1995.

A. T. Hara, C. P. Turssi, M. C. Serra, and M. C. S. Nogueira, “Extent of the cariostatic effect on root dentin provided by fluoride-containing restorative materials,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 480–487, 2002.

X.-L. Gao, J.-S. Pan, and C.-Y. Hsu, “Laser-fluoride effect on root demineralization,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 85, no. 10, pp. 919–923, 2006.

D. Fried, M. J. Zuerlein, C. Q. Le, and J. D. B. Featherstone, “Thermal and chemical modification of dentin by 9–11-μm CO₂ laser pulses of 5–100-μs duration,” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 275–282, 2002.

C. P. Lin, B. S. Lee, S. H. Kok, W. H. Lan, Y. C. Tseng, and F. H. Lin, “Treatment of tooth fracture by medium energy CO₂ laser and DP-bioactive glass paste: thermal behavior and phase transformation of human tooth enamel and dentin after irradiation by CO₂ laser,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 373–381, 2000.

M. K. Yamada, M. Uo, S. Ohkawa, T. Akasaka, and F. Watari, “Three-dimensional topographic scanning electron microscope and Raman spectroscopic analyses of the irradiation effect on teeth by Nd:YAG, Er: YAG, and CO₂ lasers,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 7–15, 2004.

B. O. Fowler and S. Kuroda, “Changes in heated and in laser-irradiated human tooth enamel and their probable effects on solubility,” Calcified Tissue International, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 197–208, 1986.

M. Hossain, Y. Nakamura, Y. Kimura, M. Ito, Y. Yamada, and K. Matsumoto, “Acquired acid resistance of dental hard tissues by CO₂ laser irradiation,” Journal of Clinical Laser Medicine & Surgery, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 223–226, 1999.

M. M. I. Hossain, M. Hossain, Y. Kimura, J.-I. Kinoshita, Y. Yamada, and K. Matsumoto, “Acquired acid resistance of enamel and dentin by CO₂ laser irradiation with sodium fluoride solution,” Journal of Clinical Laser Medicine and Surgery, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 77–82, 2002.

S. Nammour, C. Renneboog-Squilbin, and C. Nyssen-Behets, “Increased resistance to artificial caries-like lesions in dentin treated with CO₂ laser,” Caries Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 170–175, 1992.

M. Esteves-Oliveira, D. M. Zezell, P. A. Ana, S. S. Yekta, F. Lampert, and C. P. Eduardo, “Dentine caries inhibition through CO₂ laser (10.6 μm) irradiation and fluoride application, in vitro,” Archives of Oral Biology, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 533–539, 2011.

J. D. B. Featherstone, C. Q. Le, D. Hsu, S. Manesh, and D. Fried, “Changes in acid resistance of dentin irradiated by a CW 10.6 μm CO₂ laser,” in Lasers in Dentistry XIV, P. Rechmann and D. Fried, Eds., vol. 6843 of Proceedings of SPIE, 684305, San Jose, Calif, USA, 2008.

C. Q. Le, D. Fried, and J. D. B. Featherstone, “Lack of dentin acid resistance following 9.3 μm CO₂ laser irradiation,” in Lasers in Dentistry XIV, P. Rechmann and D. Fried, Eds., vol. 6843 of Proceedings of SPIE, San Jose, Calif, USA, 2008.

A. Wiegand, A. C. Magalhães, R. S. Navarro et al., “Effect of titanium tetrafluoride and amine fluoride treatment combined with carbon dioxide laser irradiation on enamel and dentin erosion,” Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 219–226, 2010.