A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of a one‐step conditioning agent in sealant placement: 6‐month results

Burbridge, Lucy; Nugent, ZJ; Deery, Chris

doi:10.1111/j.1365-263x.2006.00764.x

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sealants were assessed according to a modified version of the CCC sealants evaluation system described by Deery et al 8,9 For each child, assessment scores were recorded using a proforma that included basic demographic information. Data obtained was subjected to statistical analysis using the Z-test for proportion using SPSS software 19 using Windows.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of glass carbomer sealant and a moisture tolerant resin sealant – A comparative study

Subramaniam

Jayasurya

Babu

2015

International Journal of Dental Science and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of glass carbomer sealant and a moisture tolerant resin sealant – A comparative study

Subramaniam

Jayasurya

Babu

2015

International Journal of Dental Science and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…31 Sealant placement with self-etch adhesives was found to have poor retention when compared to those sealants placed with phosphoric acid etching. Similar to the current study, Burbridge and others 32 compared the retention of fissure sealants placed on occlusal surfaces following the use of a self-etching priming agent and traditional acid etch. While Xeno III (Dentsply International, York, PA, USA) was used to prepare the occlusal enamel on one side of the lower arch, phosphoric acid, together with Prime & Bond (Dentply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA), was used on the other side.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled Fissure Sealant Placed with Different Adhesive Systems: 24-month Results

Yazici

Karaman²,

Başeren³

et al. 2009

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYObjective: This clinical study compared the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 24 months.Methods: Two-hundred and forty-four sealants were placed on the permanent premolars and molars of 16 subjects who had no restorations or sealants present on the fissures and no detectable caries. The sealants were placed with either SoloBond M two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or FuturaBond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists, using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Clinical evaluations were done at baseline and at 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, 18-and 24-month recalls. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently Clinical RelevanceThe use of an etch-and-rinse adhesive prior to the placement of sealants yielded better retention than did the use of a self-etch adhesive. AR Yazici • E Karaman • M Baseren D Tuncer • E Yazici • S Ünlüerevaluated the sealants. Evaluation of the sealants on every follow-up visit involved visual examination with the aid of a dental explorer and an intra-oral mirror. Each sealant was evaluated with the following criteria: 1= completely retained; 2= partial loss; 3= total loss. The Pearson Chi-square test was used to evaluate differences in the retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period.Results: For the 12-month recalls, complete retention rates of 89.3% for the SoloBond M group and 20.5% for the FuturaBond NR group were observed. Sixteen of the 244 restorations were unavailable after 12 months. At 24 months, a total loss of 9 sealants in the SoloBond M group and 84 in the FuturaBond NR group were observed, resulting in retention rates of 81.6% and 15.8%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in retention rates between the SoloBond M and FuturaBond NR groups in all periods of evaluation (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference between the retention rates for premolars and molars was found at each evaluation period (p>0.05). There was no new caries formation throughout the 24-month recall period.Conclusion: Fissure sealants placed with etchand-rinse adhesive showed better retention rates than those placed with self-etch adhesive.

show abstract

“…This confirms previous 12-month clinical studies evaluating occlusal sealant retention. 25,26 Because occlusal sealants that fill pits and fissures are thicker than facial sealants, more surface resin can be lost without losing coverage of the tooth. While thickness may explain why retention is lower in facial sealants, viscosity and oxygen inhibition must also be considered in order to explain the differences between the ETCH and SEP groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since there is no difference in the bond strength of orthodontic brackets between traditional etching and SEP, 23,24 it is reasonable to assume that SEP could be used effectively with facial sealants placed before bonding brackets. While lower retention of occlusal sealants has been reported for SEP than for ETCH, 25,26 a 24-month clinical trial found no difference in retention between the two etching protocols. 27 It has also been shown that SEP provides less resistance to decalcification than does traditional etching.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention of sealants during orthodontic treatment: An in vitro comparison of two etching protocols

Chau

Campbell

Deljavan

et al. 2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To test the retention of smooth-surface sealants bonded with different etching protocols against toothbrushing and, secondarily, to characterize the type and location of sealant loss. Materials and Methods: Eighty-nine extracted human teeth were randomly assigned one of two etching protocols: 37% phosphoric acid etch (ETCH) or self-etching primer (SEP). Six specimens at a time were placed in a toothbrushing machine to simulate 4, 8, 12, and 24 months of toothbrush abrasion. Using black-light photographs of each specimen taken before and after brushing, four blinded coinvestigators determined new sealant loss, loss along the edge of an initial defect, and the location of sealant loss. Results: Overall, there were significantly (P , .05) more teeth with sealant loss in the SEP group (38.6%) than in the ETCH group (15.5%). New loss of sealant was significantly (P , .05) more likely in the SEP group (27.2%) than in the ETCH group (2.2%). Of the teeth with new loss of sealant, all (100%) had loss at the edge, and 23% had progressive loss. There was no significant group difference in sealant loss from initial defects. Of the teeth that showed enlargement of initial defects, 91% had loss at the edge and 91% had progressive loss. Conclusions: Using SEP to apply facial sealants results in lower retention rates than using ETCH. The vast majority of sealant loss occurs at the edges. Loss of sealant due to enlargement of an initial defect is highly progressive over time. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:750-756.)

show abstract

A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of a one‐step conditioning agent in sealant placement: 6‐month results

Abstract: In view of the findings of this investigation, best practice for the placement of sealants remains enamel preparation with acid etch and the use of an intermediate bonding layer.

Cited by 22 publications

References 13 publications

Evaluation of glass carbomer sealant and a moisture tolerant resin sealant – A comparative study

Evaluation of glass carbomer sealant and a moisture tolerant resin sealant – A comparative study

Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled Fissure Sealant Placed with Different Adhesive Systems: 24-month Results

Retention of sealants during orthodontic treatment: An in vitro comparison of two etching protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About