Ramírez OP, Barceló SF, Pacheco FML, Ramírez FF

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 70-75
PDF size: 167.56 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The pit and fissure sealants have been used successfully in preventive dentistry as a physical barrier to isolate fissures from oral fluids. We have to consider different factors such as the quality of adhesion to the tooth enamel, microleakage and the polymerization system which can be a chemical reaction or light-activation. The aim of this study was to compare the adhesion and microleakage of two pit and fissure sealants of the same manufacturer with different polymerization system. Forty human molars without caries or restorations extracted for orthodontic reasons were used in this study. Four groups of ten teeth each were randomly selected. Prophylaxis was made on all molars. The sealants were handled according to the manufactures instructions. Adhesion test: previous acid etching groups 1 and 3 received a sample of each sealant on the vestibular face, then were stored in deionized water (37 &"#177; 1°C). Forty-eight hours later they were tested by applying a tractional load (Instron machine, 1 mm/min). Microleakage test: Occlusal fissures of the 2 and 4 groups were etched and sealed with a chemical and light-activated sealants respectively, then thermocycled (1,000 cycles; 5-45°C). A coat of acrylic resin and nail varnish was placed on the molars leaving the occlusal surface free and immersed for 4 hours in a 2% methylene blue dye. Molars were sectioned bucco-lingually and examined with a stereomicroscope (10X). The results of the adhesion test were analyzed with a Student t that showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.035) between both polymerization systems. Twenty percent of the specimens sealed with a light–activated sealant presented microleakage; 45% of specimens sealed with a chemical reaction sealant presented microleakage. This results were compared by the Mann-Whitney nonparametric test. No statistical significant differences were found (p = 0.179).

REFERENCES

1. Menaker L, Morhart RE, Navia J. Bases biológicas de la caries dental. España: Ed. Salvat; 1986: 223-36, 333-50, 493-514.

2. Pérez-Lajarín L, Cortés-Lillo O, García-Ballesta C, Cózar-Hidalgo A. Marginal microleakage of two fissure sealants: a comparative study. J Dent Child 2003; 70: 24-28.

3. De Paola DP, Cheney HG. Odontología preventiva. Argentina: Ed. Mundi; 1981: 77-80, 85-100.

4. Programa de Educación Continua no Convencional (PRECONC). Odontología preventiva módulos 1-3. Organización Panamericana de la Salud; 1992: 49-72.

5. Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatric Dent 2002; 24(5): 393-414.

6. Cooley LR, McCourt WJ. Evaluation of a fluoride containing sealant by SEM, microleakage and fluoride release. Pediatric Dent 1990; 12(1): 38-41.

7. Karlzén-Reuterving G, van Dijken WV. A three-year follow-up of glass ionomer cement and resin fissure sealants. J Den Chil 1995: 108-10.

8. Komatsu H, Shimokobe H, Kawakami S, Yoshimura M. Caries preventive effect of glass ionomer sealant reapplication: Study presents three-year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1994; 125: 543-49.

9. Seppä L, Forss H. Resistance of occlusal fissures to demineralization after loss of glass ionomer sealants in vitro. Pediatr Dent 1991; 13(1): 39-42.

10. Baratieri NL, Monteiro S. Influence of acid type (phosphoric or maleic) on the retention of pit and fissure sealant: An in vivo study. Quintessence Int 1994; 25(11): 749-55.

11. Loyola JP. Selladores de fosetas y fisuras. ¿La manera más efectiva para prevenir la caries dental? Rev Dif Odonto UASLP 1994; 1(2): 3-6.

12. Futatsuky M, Kubota K, Yeh Y, Park K, Moss JS. Early loss of pit and fissure sealant: a clinical and SEM study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1995; 19(2): 99-104.

13. Bogert TR, Garcia GF. Effect of prophylaxis agent on the shear bond strength of a fissure sealant. Pediatric Dentistry 1992; 14: 50-51.

14. Ansari G, Oloomi K, Eslami B. Microleakage assessment of pit and fissure sealant with and without the use of pumice prophylaxis. Int J Paed Dent 2004; 14(4): 272.

15. Chan D, Summitt J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hilton TJ, Chung KH. Evaluation of different methods for cleaning and preparation occlusal fissures. Operative Dentistry 1999; 24: 331-36.

16. Sol E, Espasa E, Boj JR, Canalda C. Effect of different prophylaxis methods on sealant adhesion. J Clinic Pediatric Dent 2000; 24: 211-14.

17. Eidelman E, Shapira J, Houpt M. The retention of fissure sealant using twenty-second etching time: three-year follow-up. ASDC J Dent Child 1988; 55(2): 119-120.

18. Tandon S, Kumari R, Udupa S. The effect of etch-time on the bond strength of a sealant and on the etch-pattern of primary and permanent enamel: an evaluation. ASDC J Dent Child 1989; 56(3): 186-190.

19. Duggal MS, Tahmassebi JF, Toumba KJ, Mavromati C. The effect of different etching times on the retention of fissure sealants in second primary and first permanent molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 1997; 7(2): 81-6.

20. Celiberti P, Lussi A. Use of a self-etching adhesive on previously etched intact enamel and its effect on sealant microleakage and tag formation. J Dent 2004; 33(2): 163-171.

21. Theodoridou-Pahini S, Tolidis K, Papadogiannis Y. Degree of microleakage of some pit and fissure sealants: an in vitro study. Int J Paediatr Dent 1996; 6: 73-6.