Comparison of resin-based and glass ionomer sealants with regard to fluoride-release and anti-demineralization efficacy on adjacent unsealed enamel

Abstract

This study compared resin-based and glass ionomer sealants with regard to their fluoride-release behavior and anti-demineralization potential on adjacent unsealed enamel surfaces. Sealant cavities prepared on bovine enamel blocks were filled with fluoride-containing resin sealants [TeethmateF-1 (TF), Clinpro TM (CP)], and glass ionomer sealant [Fuji VII (FVII)]. Specimens were then incubated in artificial saliva for 14 days to measure fluoride. Thereafter, demineralization was performed for 10 days, and the anti-demineralization efficacy was assessed by Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography (SS-OCT), and cross-sectional nanohardness. All data were statistically analyzed by using ANOVA. FVII exhibited the highest fluoride release. SS-OCT and nanohardness findings indicated that anti-demineralization efficacy of TF was the greatest, whereas FVII was not significantly different from that of CP. Resin sealants released a lower amount of fluoride but exhibited anti-demineralization effects on the adjacent unsealed enamel surfaces that were comparable to that of a glass ionomer sealant.

Are glass carbomer sealants more efficient in preventing carious lesions in children’s permanent molars when compared to other sealant materials? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

“…22 This remaining material modifies the anatomy of the fissures and facilitates the removal of dental plaque by tooth brushing from fissures that otherwise would be inaccessible 22 , it also promotes some release of fluoride to the adjacent enamel. 41,42 Both processes seem to explain the lack of caries progression even after total or partial loss of the sealant.…”

Remineralizing Effects of Resin-Based Dental Sealants: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

“…Most of the included studies showed a moderate risk of bias overall (Table 1). Only six studies out of the thirty-nine included studies were judged to have a low risk of bias [27][28][29][30][31][32] (Table 2). Randomization and blinding were not reported in most of the included studies, leading to a positive risk of bias (Figure 2).…”

“…In general, the sample type was varied between the use of human non-carious teeth or samples made from the tested materials. Generally, most of the studied materials were light-cured, except for a few studies which used chemically cured materials [18,28,39,42,56,58,60]. The remineralizing agents in the tested materials included F, amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP), bioactive glass, strontium (Sr), hydroxyapatite (HAP), calcium silicate (CS), boron nitride nanotubes (BNNT), and calcium phosphate (CaP).…”

“…Seven studies assessed the remineralizing abilities of the tested materials by measuring the hardness change [19,28,29,32,33,52,57]. There was a variation in the pH cycling method.…”

A Review of Glass Ionomer as ‘ART’ Sealant

“…(9,15) The remnants render the pit and fissures to be of less than normal depth, thus permitting better plaque control and prevention of demineralization. (12) Invitro studies (15,16) have revealed initial release of large amount of fluoride from the glassionomer cement (burst effect). The fluoride release continues over the next few weeks, possibly due to slow dissolution of the glass particles into acidified water of the hydrogel matrix.…”