A comparison of microleakage in self-etch fissure sealants and conventional fissure sealants with total-etch or self-etch adhesive systems

Nahvi, Azam; Razavian, Alireza; Abedi, Hoorieh; Charati, Jamshid Yazdani

doi:10.4103/ejd.ejd_63_18

Cited by 14 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings contrast with those of Nahvi et al [29]. They reported significant reduction in microleakage with the use of a pre-sealant bonding agent.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Laser Tooth Preparation for Pit and Fissure Sealing

Schwimmer

Beyth

Ram

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Various approaches are available for pit and fissure sealing, including: the use of sealants, with or without mechanical preparation; the use of etching, with or without bonding; and the use of lasers as an alternative to mechanical preparation. The objective of this study is to evaluate pit and fissure sealing by comparing the retention and microleakage of sealants, between mechanical and Er:Yag laser enamel preparation. Methods: Sixty extracted sound third molars are classified into six groups: A, bur mechanical preparation and sealant application; B, bur mechanical preparation, etching and sealant; C, bur mechanical preparation, etching, bonding and sealant; D, laser mechanical preparation and sealant; E, laser mechanical preparation, etching and sealant application; F, laser mechanical preparation, etching, bonding, and sealant. Statistical analysis methods include Fisher’s exact test, a general linear model for one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of multiple comparisons, and Bonferroni multiple comparison tests. Results: All the groups showed dye microleakage beneath the sealants. Less microleakage was observed for those that used bur rather than laser, 41 versus 44 specimens, respectively. The number of specimens without microleakage decreased as follows: group E (24), group A (18), groups B and F (17), group C (14), and group D (5). Retention was 100% in all groups except group D. Conclusion: Mechanical preparation increases retention of sealants, especially when etching material is used; additionally, bonding can help the retention. The best technique is mechanical preparation via laser and subsequent use of etching, without bonding prior to application of the dental sealant.

show abstract

“…Our findings contrast with those of Nahvi et al [29]. They reported significant reduction in microleakage with the use of a pre-sealant bonding agent.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Laser Tooth Preparation for Pit and Fissure Sealing

Schwimmer

Beyth

Ram

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results of present study showed no statistically significant difference in the microleakage scores between two groups. This is in well agreement with the findings of a study by Nahvi A et al (18), who compared self-etching sealant (Prevent seal) with conventional acid etch sealant with / without application of bonding agent. Findings of the later study showed prevent seal had comparable microleakage scores to conventional acid etch sealant (Clinpro) when applied without bonding agent.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The application of bonding agent after etching is still a controversy. The critics of the same put forth this as an time consuming additional step, which also increases the treatment cost (18). Long term follow up clinical studies by Mascarenhas et al (19) and Boksman et al (20), concluded that use of bonding agent before sealing does not improve the sealant retention in the long run.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Long term follow up clinical studies by Mascarenhas et al (19) and Boksman et al (20), concluded that use of bonding agent before sealing does not improve the sealant retention in the long run. Though, few other studies (21-24) reported significantly less microleakage scores when bonding agent was used before sealing, considering the added treatment time and possible isolation breach in young-uncooperative children, this technique is more feasible and acceptable in older patients (18).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative evaluation of sealing ability, penetration and adaptation of a self etching pit and fissure sealant- stereomicroscopic and scanning electron microscopic analyses

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The efficacy of pit and fissure sealants in preventing occlusal caries is a well-established fact. Considering the difficulty in achieving strict isolation for a longer duration while treating the pediatric patients, a simplified procedure of sealant application is desirable. While, a self-etching sealant, Prevent Seal offers a quick procedure, the physical properties of this material haven’t been studied yet. Thus, this study was aimed to comparatively evaluate sealing ability, penetration and adaptation of a self-etching pit and fissure sealant and a conventional resin sealant. Material and Methods This was an in vitro intergroup comparative study, which consisted of 2 groups- Group I (Conventional acid etch sealant, Clinpro) and Group II (Self etching sealant, Prevent Seal). Out of 32 selected teeth 16 were used to study microleakage, with the help of dye penetration test using Övrebö and Raadal criteria. Remaining 16 were used to evaluate sealant penetration and adaptation viz bubbles in the bottom of fissure, debris in the fissure, tags in the bottom of the fissure and tags at cuspal slopes and fissure entrance was done using stereomicroscope. Post stereomicroscopic evaluation 4 samples each were randomly chosen from both the groups and checked for etching pattern using Scanning electronic microscope. Results The comparison of tested properties between the groups was done using Chi square test. There was no statistically significant difference observed when microleakage and sealant penetration / adaptation properties were compared between two groups ( p =0.63 and p = 0.131, 0.131, 0.302, 0.106 respectively). No conclusive results could be withdrawn while etching patterns were compared between the groups ( p =0.717). Conclusions The self-etching sealant Prevent seal was found to have similar microleakage, sealant penetration and adaptation properties as conventional acid etch sealant. Key words: Pit and fissure sealant, self-etching, scanning electron microscope, sealing ability.

show abstract

“…28 Our findings contrast with those of Nahvi and colleagues. 29 They reported significant reduction in micro-leakage with the use of a pre-sealant bonding agent. Elsewhere, the bonding agent beneath the sealant was shown to increase the bond strength even in moisture-contaminated conditions, and to decrease micro-leakage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laser tooth preparation for pit and fissure sealing

Schwimmer

Beyth

Ram

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Considerable evidence shows that sealing dental pits and fissures contributes to caries prevention in children and adolescents. Various approaches are available for pit and fissure sealing. Sealants can be inserted with or without mechanical preparation; etching can be applied, with or without bonding. Lasers can be used as an alternative for mechanical preparation. In this study, we systematically evaluated the retention and micro-leakage of pit and fissure sealants, comparing mechanical preparation and Er:Yag laser enamel preparation. For each of these preparations we compared sealants without etching to those with etching, with and without bonding.Methods Sixty extracted sound third molars were classified into 6 groups: A. bur mechanical preparation and sealant application; B. bur mechanical preparation, etching and sealant; C. bur mechanical preparation, etching, bonding and sealant; D. laser mechanical preparation and sealant; E. laser mechanical preparation, etching and sealant application; F. laser mechanical preparation, etching, bonding and sealant. Pit and fissure sealing were evaluated by assessing the retention and micro-leakage of the sealant.Results All the groups showed dye micro-leakage beneath the sealants. Less micro-leakage was observed for the groups that used bur (groups A, B, C) than laser (groups D, E, F): 41 versus 44 specimens. The number of specimens without micro-leakage decreased as follows: group E (24), group A (18), groups B and F (17), group C (14) and group D (5). The difference in penetration between group D and the other groups was statistically significant, p<0.001, chi square.Conclusion Mechanical preparation is important and increases the retention of sealants, especially when using etching material; bonding can help the retention. We recommend preparing sealant with laser, without etching and bonding before its application.

show abstract

A comparison of microleakage in self-etch fissure sealants and conventional fissure sealants with total-etch or self-etch adhesive systems

Cited by 14 publications

References 11 publications

Laser Tooth Preparation for Pit and Fissure Sealing

Laser Tooth Preparation for Pit and Fissure Sealing

Comparative evaluation of sealing ability, penetration and adaptation of a self etching pit and fissure sealant- stereomicroscopic and scanning electron microscopic analyses

Laser tooth preparation for pit and fissure sealing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About