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
Available from: Claudia Butrón Téllez-Girón
- "Complete sealant retention is associated with increased longevity of the micromechanically retained protective barrier between the enamel surface and the oral environment. Recent studies have reported that sealant retention rates in permanent molars decrease to 85% and 50% one and five years after placement, respectively (in primary molars, the retention rate ranges from 85% at 1 year to 73% at almost 3 years) [Shapira and Eidelman, 1986; Castro and Galvão, 2004; Beauchamp et al., 2008]. The lack of integrity of the peripheral enamel-sealant interface may cause microleakage of bacteria, nutrients, and the resulting acidic metabolic products, which may allow caries initiation or recurrence or postoperative pulp inflammation [Bagherian et al., 2013]. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the rate of sealant retention and microleakage after placement on etched enamel with and without prior deproteinisation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
75 freshly extracted third molars were randomly assigned to either of two pit and fissure treatment methods. Samples from both groups were etched with 37% phosphoric acid gel for 15 seconds, followed by placement of a sealant, and then subjected to thermocycling for evaluation of sealant retention. After that, specimens were immersed in rhodamine B, sectioned longitudinally, and examined under a confocal laser scanning microscope for assessment of microleakage. Collected data were statistically analysed using chi-square and Fisher exact tests with an α level of 0.05.
The rate of sealant retention was similar between the two study groups (P = 0.073), but the rate of sealant microleakage was significantly lower in the enamel deproteinisation group (P < 0.001) than in the control group.
Based on these findings, we recommend the deproteinisation method prior to enamel acid etching to obtain better clinical results with sealants.
- "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. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
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.
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.
Available from: Regina Guenka Palma-Dibb
[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.
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.