Forums › Laser Resources › Laser Physics Related Literature › Looking for sn article.
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
dkimmelSpectatorLooking for a copy of
Comparison of Er:YAG and Er: YSGG laser ablation of dental hard tissues. In: Altshuler GB< Bringruber R, Dal Fante M , et al eds. Proceedings from Medical Applications of Laser in Dermatology, ophthalmology, Dentistry and endoscopy. proc SPIE. 1995;3192; 88-95 Any clues??
David
AnonymousGuestDAvid,
Moved your post here. See link below for info.But if its the Stock/ Hibst article you want, I may have it at the office, email me Monday to remind me. I also think Ben or Ray may have it.
BTW, what’s sn?
dkimmelSpectatorThanks Ray got it to me.
David
dkimmelSpectatorI have been reading the Hibst article comparing the Er:YSGG to the Er:YSG. First I would like to state that I am not trying to start another conflict. This article has been used in another recent review article making a point of about the differences between the two lasers. I am just trying to understand this article.
The first question I have is the two lasers. The Er:YSG laser that was used in this study was a Key 2 Kavo Er:YSG laser. All we know about the Er:YSGG was that it was a laboratory laser system. I get the impression that this was not an Er,Cr:YSGG laser. The Er:YSGG and the Er,Cr:YSGG both operate at 2790nm. The Cr addition to the Er:YSGG crystal improves the laser efficiency. Can you really say the results of an Er:YSGG laser to Er,Cr:YSGG laser are the same?
The second question is calibration. It could be just me but it was not real clear about the calibration of each of the lasers. Was it known that the power output at the tip was the same for each laser?
Third, what clinical relevancy does this study have?
The samples were stored in Formalin.
The water levels were far less then those used clinically with either the YSG or the
YSGG lasers.
The HZ setting were far below those used with other lasers except for one.
The mj used were also higher then that used by most Er lasers except for one.I really cannot see how one could say one laser would be better then another clinically from this study. Each laser operates slightly differently. It would seem that it would make more since to operate each laser independently on parameters that are the most efficient to that laser. They would also be operated at levels not to just blast away enamel but at levels that are used clinically that do not require anesthesia for the patient. Even in this study if you look at the mj at lower level there is not much difference. The temp studies are also at high levels and no water. Again not something we would do chair side.
AnonymousGuestQUOTEQuote: from dkimmel on 10:28 pm on Dec. 6, 2003
Can you really say the results of an Er:YSGG laser to Er,Cr:YSGG laser are the same?……Third, what clinical relevancy does this study have?…
…I really cannot see how one could say one laser would be better then another clinically from this study.
Biolase would say that they are not the same because of all Biolase’s proprietary technology (asked them the same question, although I think they lean too heavily on that explanation whenever a study differs with their findings JMO)
Clinical relevance and the ability to judge which laser is best, based on any of these studies, is something that I don’t think I have been able to do. The best I have figured out is some minor differences in the absorption and whether that is significant clinically is anyone’s guess.
Great questions, David. Something every buyer should be asking themselves when getting the spiel from the sales rep’s who like to recite bits and pieces that would make their laser look better.
-
AuthorPosts