Comparison of three different preparation methods in the improvement of sealant retention
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, 1 Kneeland Street, Boston, MA 02111, USA.The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry (Impact Factor: 0.35). 02/2004; 28(3):249-52. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.28.3.6601q47p5364206p
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of three invasive fissure preparation methods in the retention of sealant on the surfaces of permanent molars. One hundred and eight extracted caries-free human molars were used in this study, which were divided into 3 groups according to the fissure preparation: laser, air abrasion and bur. In addition, each of these three groups was further divided into 2 additional groups to isolate those in which a bonding agent would be used from those in which a bonding agent would not be used. After the accomplishment of the different treatments samples from all the 6 experimental groups were submitted to two different bond strength tests: (i) shear bond strength test and (ii) tensile bond strength test. Bond strengths were determined by the dividing fracture load and a statistical test ANOVA was used to evaluate significant differences. The results showed that laser improved the sealant retention when compared with air abrasion preparation when the bonding agent was used. The use of bonding agent increased the sealant retention in all methods except for tensile bond strength when air abrasion was used as the preparation method
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Although, there are the various methods fore preparing enamel, there isn't any agreement about preference of one to another. Various burs such as ½, ¼ round and diamond komet No.8392 and …are used for preparation. "
ABSTRACT: Prevention from caries is a principle in dentistry and fissure sealant therapy is being used as a preventive method success of sealants is directly depending on their retention. The Aim of the present study is to evaluate effects of enamel preparation on sealant retention. Clinical trial. About 57 children aged 6-8 year old took part in this study. 200 first molar teeth of these children has been randomly separated into two groups: A case group (Mechanically preparation of enamel) and a control group (conventional method, without preparation). After applying fissure sealants children were followed up 6 months later. Mann- U- Whitney Test was used. Complete retention after 6 month follow up was 86.7% in case group and 82.8% in control group. No significant difference was seen between the groups after 6 month follow up. (P = 0.508). Although statistical evaluation didn't show significant difference, but sealant retention was more after preparation technique.10/2012; 3(4):380-2. DOI:10.4103/0976-237X.107418
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to assess the shear bond strength of resin sealants to saliva-contaminated and noncontaminated enamel, comparing 2 curing protocols: (1) individual light-curing of the intermediate bonding agent layer and the sealant; or (2) simultaneous curing of both materials. Seventy-two enamel test surfaces were obtained from 24 third molars and randomly assigned to 2 groups (N=36): (A) saliva-contaminated; (B) noncontaminated. Each group was divided into 3 subgroups, according to the bonding technique: (1) Prime&Bond and Fluroshield were light cured separately; (2) Prime&Bond and Fluroshield were light cured together; (3) Fluroshield was applied alone. Shear bond strength was tested at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Means (MPa) were: IA-15.61(+/-4.74); IIA-15.71(+/-6.18); IIIA-13.83(+/-1.50); IB-24.73(+/-4.34); IIB-22.41(+/-4.16); IIIB-18.20(+/-3.58). Statistical analysis revealed that overall bond strength to saliva-contaminated enamel was remarkably lower (P < .05) than that recorded under dry conditions. In both contaminated and noncontaminated groups, significantly higher shear bond strength (P < .05) was observed when the bonding agent was applied underneath the sealant. Comparing the curing protocols for contaminated specimens, no statistically significant difference (P > .05) was observed between individual and simultaneous curing. Conversely, for noncontaminated specimens, bond strength was higher and statistically different (P < .05) when the materials were light cured separately. Individual or simultaneous curing of the intermediate bonding agent layer and the resin sealant does not seem to affect bond strength to saliva-contaminated enamel. When dry, noncontaminated conditions are maintained, however, the intermediary and the sealing materials should preferably be light cured separately.Journal of dentistry for children (Chicago, Ill.) 11/2004; 72(1):31-5.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Using a dental mirror and explorer during a clinical examination, the clinician can make the observation that there are pits, fissures, and grooves on the surfaces of teeth. The decision-making for the diagnosis of carious pits and fissures has changed owing to better understanding of the carious process and improved diagnostic techniques . Even with newer technologies for caries diagnosis, it remains difficult to chart the progression of the disease [70-73] because considerable variation is noted when this type of caries is examined microscopically . The many advances in instrumentation, materials, and techniques have assisted clinicians in making the transition from traditional principles of cavity preparation and restoration to more conservative minimally invasive dentistry. These advances combined with accurate and early diagnosis of caries and caries risk assessment and management have paved the way for the conservation of tooth structure, eliminating the needless destruction of healthy enamel and dentin. This article has presented an overview of clinical techniques for the treatment of minimally invasive carious lesions and those lesions referred to as hidden caries.Dental Clinics of North America 11/2005; 49(4):867-87, viii. DOI:10.1016/j.cden.2005.05.005
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.