Influence of prophylaxis paste treatment on the abrasive wear of surface sealants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the abrasive wear of surface sealants (SealProtect and K-0184 (experimental sealant)) and the influence of pre-treatment with mineral deposit forming prophylaxis pastes (NUPRO Sensodyne and NUPRO) on this wear. METHODS: One hundred and eight bovine dentine samples were randomly allocated to nine groups (1-9). Pre-treatment (10 s): groups 1-3: untreated, groups 4-6: NUPRO, groups 7-9: NUPRO Sensodyne. Sealing: groups 1, 4 and 7: unsealed, groups 2, 5 and 8: SealProtect, groups 3, 6 and 9: K-0184 (experimental sealer). Samples were then brushed with 12 000 brushing strokes (BS) with toothpaste slurry in an automatic brushing machine (120 BS/min; F = 2.5 N). Surface profiles were recorded at baseline, after pre-treatment and sealing and after each 2000 BS. RESULTS: Total profile change (wear or gain due to pre-treatment, treatment and 12 000 BS): groups 1, 4 and 7 (no surface sealant) showed a not significantly different wear of 18.48 ± 2.63 µm, 24.98 ± 3.02 µm and 21.50 ± 5.47 µm, respectively. Remaining groups (sealed) showed a gain in height with no significant difference among each other. Wear in sealed groups (2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9) were not significantly different at all numbers of brushing strokes. Starting with 4000 BS, the wear in unsealed groups (1, 4 and 7) was statistically significantly higher compared to all other groups. CONCLUSION: Stability and wear resistance of surface sealants are not affected by pre-treatment of dentine with NUPRO Sensodyne. The surface sealants tested provide a stable protective surface layer on dentine, which lasts for at least 12 000 brushing strokes. Abstract:Objective: To investigate the abrasive wear of surface sealants (Seal&Protect and K-0184 (experimental sealant)) and the influence of pre-treatment with mineral deposit forming prophylaxis pastes (NUPRO Sensodyne and NUPRO) on this wear.Methods: 108 bovine dentine samples were randomly allocated to nine groups (1-9). Pretreatment (10 s): groups 1-3: untreated, groups 4-6: NUPRO, groups 7-9: NUPRO Sensodyne.Sealing: groups 1, 4 and 7: unsealed, groups 2, 5 and 8: Seal&Protect, groups 3, 6 and 9: K-0184 (experimental sealer). Samples were then brushed with 12000 brushing strokes (BS) with toothpaste slurry in an automatic brushing machine (120 BS/min; F = 2.5 N). Surface profiles were recorded at baseline, after pre-treatment and sealing, and after each 2000 BS.Results: Total profile change (wear or gain due to pre-treatment, treatment and 12000 BS): groups 1, 4 and 7 (no surface sealant) showed a not significantly different wear of 18.48±2.63 µm, 24.98±3.02 µm and 21.50±5.47 µm, respectively. Remaining groups (sealed) showed a gain in height with no significant difference among each other.Wear in sealed groups (2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9) were not significantly different at all numbers of brushing strokes. Starting with 4000 BS, the wear in unsealed groups (1, 4 and 7) was statistically significantly higher compared to all other groups.Conclusion: Stability and wear resistance of surface sea...

Influence of light-curing mode on the cytotoxicity of resin-based surface sealants

“…On the other hand, in those studies that showed a higher cytotoxicity after shorter light-curing time, restorative resin composites [14] or resin luting cements [13] with a thickness of the samples of 2 mm and 1 mm were tested, respectively. In contrast, the layer thickness of the sealants tested in the present study commonly amounted to between 22 μm [39] to 40 μm [40]. We assume that due to this much lower thickness of the sealant’s layer, shortening of the light-curing duration has a lower influence on the cytotoxicity, as the curing light can easily reach the bottom side of the samples (sealant layer).…”