# Er:YAG Laser Applications for Debonding Different Ceramic Restorations: An In Vitro Study

## TL;DR

This study shows that Er:YAG lasers can effectively and safely remove ceramic dental restorations without damaging the tooth, with varying success rates depending on the restoration type.

## Contribution

The study evaluates the effectiveness of Er:YAG lasers for debonding different ceramic restorations and compares their success rates.

## Key findings

- Layered zirconia and feldspathic restorations had 100% success in debonding with the Er:YAG laser.
- Monolithic zirconia restorations showed 0% success in debonding.
- Debonding did not harm the underlying tooth structure, as confirmed by electron microscopy.

## Abstract

Background and Objectives: Conventional methods for removing cemented fixed prosthetic restorations (FPRs) are unreliable and lead to unsatisfactory outcomes. At their best, they allow the tooth to be saved at the expense of a laborious process that also wears down rotating tools and handpieces and occasionally results in abutment fractures. Restorations are nearly never reusable in any of these situations. Erbium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) and erbium-chromium yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) lasers casafely and effectively remove FPRs, according to scientific studiesre. This study sets out to examine the impact of Er:YAG laser radiation on the debonding of different ceramic restorations, comparing the behavior of various ceramic prosthetic restoration types under laser radiation action and evaluating the integrity of prosthetic restorations and dental surfaces exposed to laser radiation. Materials and Methods: The study included a total of 16 removed teeth, each prepared on opposite surfaces as abutments.y. Based on the previously defined groups, four types of ceramic restorations were included in the study: feldspathic (F), lithium disilicates (LD), layered zirconia (LZ), and monolithic zirconia (MZ). The thickness of the prosthetic restorations was measured at three points, and two different materials were used for cementation. The Er:YAG Fotona StarWalker MaQX laser was used to debond the ceramic FPR at a distance of 10 mm using an R14 sapphire tip with 275 mJ, 20 Hz, 5.5 W, with air cooling (setting 1 of 9) and water. After debonding, the debonded surface was visualized under electron microscopy. Results: A total of 23 ceramic FPRs were debonded, of which 12 were intact and the others fractured into two or three pieces. The electron microscopy images showed that debonding took place without causing any harm to the tooth structure. The various restoration types had the following success rates: 100% for the LZ and F groups, 87% for the LD group, and 0% for the MZ group. In terms of cement type, debonding ceramic FPRs cemented with RELYX was successful 75% of the time, compared to Variolink DC’s 69% success rate. Conclusions: In summary, the majority of ceramic prosthetic restorations can be successfully and conservatively debonded with Er:YAG radiation.