medigraphic.com
ISSN 2174-0798 (Print)
Organo oficial de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Odontopediatría (ALOP)

2018, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odotopediatr Latinoam 2018; 8 (1)

Scanning electron microscope evaluation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic sealants under different humidity conditions: An in vitro study

Rangel PEE, Ramírez PHA, Martínez-Menchaca HR, Rivera SG, Valencia HR, Lozano LM, Martínez GGI, Espinosa FR

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page: 49-65
PDF size: 1890.39 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: Evaluates the effectiveness of different brands of hydrophobic and hydrophilic pit and fissure sealants in scanning electron microscopy (SEM) exposed to relative humidity. Materials and Methods: 40 premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were randomly divided into 8 groups: Group 1: Clinpro® sealant (dry environment), Group 2: Clinpro® sealant (wet environment), Group 3: Embrace WetBond® sealant (dry environment), Group 4: Embrace WetBond® sealant (wet environment), Group 5: UltraSeal XT Hydro® sealant (dry environment), Group 6: UltraSeal XT Hydro® (wet environment) sealant, Group 7: UltraSeal XT Plus sealant® (dry environment) and Group 8 UltraSeal XT Plus® sealant (wet environment). Results: Group 1 (Clinpro® / dry environment) showed higher values of adhesion to the enamel statistically significant, in relation to the other groups. It also showed better quality in the formation of “tags” in comparison with the other groups, independently if the atmosphere was dry or damp. Conclusions: Clinpro 3M® sealants, used in dry or relative humid conditions, proved to have good results. The UltraSeal XT Plus® fluid resin used in wet conditions did not provide good results with little tag formation; the hydrophilic sealants (Embrace Wetbond® and UltraSeal XT Hydro®) used in a humid environment had a capacity of adaptation, observing good formation of tags; Hydrophilic sealants used in dry environments do not adapt to the surface and have a tendency to fail with regard to adhesion.


REFERENCES

  1. Cueto EI, Buonocore MG. Sealing of pits and fissures with an adhesive resin: its use in caries prevention. J Am Dent Assoc 1967; 75 (1): 121-8.

  2. Espinosa R, Valencia R, Ramirez A, Rangel EE. Efecto en la adhesión al esmalte por contaminación por humedad y saliva; Estudio al MEB-EC. Revista RODYB; 2015; IV (2): 39-43.

  3. Yoo Hm, Oh TS, Pererira PN. Effect of saliva contamination on the microshear bond strength of one-step self –etching adhesive systems to dentin. Oper Dent 2006; 31(1): 127-34.

  4. Mojon P, Kaltio R, Feduik D, Hawbolt EB, MacEntee MI. Short term contamination of luting cements by water and saliva. Dent Mater 1996; 12(2): 83-7.

  5. Berh M, Rosentritt M, Loher H, et al. Changes of cement properties caused by mixing errors: the therapeutic range of different cement types. Dent Mater 2008; 24(9): 1187-93.

  6. Park JW, Lee KC. The influence of salivary contamination on shear bond strength of dentin adhesive systems . Oper Dent. 2004; 29(4): 437-42.

  7. Gilbert G H, Craig W. Amundson CW, Gordan V, DPBRN Collaborative Group. Rubber dam use during routine operative dentistry procedures: findings from The Dental PBRN. Oper Dent. 2010; 35(5): 491-99.

  8. Barghi N, Knight GT, Berry TG. Comparing two methods of moisture control in bonding to enamel: a clinical study. Oper Dent. 1991; 16(4): 130-5.

  9. Kameyama A, Asami M, Noro A, Abo H, Hirai Y, Tsunoda M. The effects of three dry-field techniques on intraoral temperature and relative humidity. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011; 142(3): 274-80.

  10. Aboushelib MN. Clinical performance of self-etching adhesives with saliva contamination. J Adhes Dent 2011; 13(5): 489-493.

  11. Jenson L, Budenz AW, Featherstone J, Ramos-Gomez F, Spolsky VW, Young DA. Clinical protocols for Caries Management by Risk Assessment. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2007; 35 (10): 714-23.

  12. Espinosa R, Valencia R, Uribe M, Ceja I, Saadia M. Enamel deproteinization and its effect on acid etching: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008; 33(1): 13-19.

  13. Celiberti, P, Lussi A. Use of self-etching adhesive on previously etched intact enamel and its effect on sealant microleakage and tag formation. J Dent. 2005; 33(2): 163-71.

  14. Espinosa R, Valencia R, Ceja I. Microscopía electronica y su aplicación en la odonto-logía. 1a. Edicion Guadalajara Jal: AMAT; 2013.

  15. Ceja I, Espinosa R. capítulo 2 en: Microscopía electronica y su aplicación en la odontología. 1a. Edición Guadalajara Jal: AMAT; 2013.

  16. Valencia R, Espinosa R, Ruiz G, Ceja I. Metodología para la evaluación de selladores de fosetas y fisuras in vivo, y su comparación con la desproteinizacion del esmalte. RODYB 2014; 3(2): 33-42.

  17. Rivas J. Devenir histórico de los selladores de fosetas y fisuras. Revista ADM 2002; LIX (3): 110-113.

  18. Knight GT, Berry TG, Barghi N, Burns TR. Effects of two methods of moisture control on marginal microleakage between resin composite and etched enamel: a clinical study. Int J Prosthodont. 1993: 6(5): 475-9.

  19. Espinosa R., Valencia R., Ramírez A., Rangel E.E. Efecto en la adhesión al esmalte por contaminación por humedad y saliva; Estudio al MEB-EC. RODYB. 2015; 4(2): 39-43.

  20. Ciucchi P, Neuhaus KW, Emerich M, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A. Evaluation of different types of enamel conditioning before application of a fissure sealant. Lasers Med Sci. 2015; 30(1): 1-9.

  21. Ashwin R, Arathi R. Comparative evaluation for microleakage between Fuji-VII glass ionomer cement and light-cured unfilled resin: A combined in vivo in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007; 25: 86-7.

  22. Al-Jobair A. Scanning electron microscope analysis of sealant penetration and adaptation in contaminated fissures. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2013; 31(3): 169-74.

  23. Panigrahi A, Srilatha KT, Panigrahi RG, Mohanty S, Bhuyan SK, Bardhan D. Bond Strength of Embrace Wetbond Hydrophilic Sealant in Different Moisture Contamina-tion: An In-Vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9(7): ZC23–ZC25.

  24. Khogli AE, Cauwels R., Vercruysse C., Verbeeck R., Martens l. Microleakage and penetration of a hydrophilic sealant and a conventional resin based sealant as a function of preparation techniques: a laboratory study. Int J Paediatric Dent. 2013 (1); 23: 13-22.

  25. Gunjal S, Nagesh L, Raju HG. Comparative evaluation of marginal integrity of glass ionomer and resin based fisure sealants using invasive and non-invasive techniques. An in vitro Study. Indian Dent Res 2012; 23(3): 320-325.

  26. Kane B., Karren J., Garcia-Godoy C., Garcia-Godoy F. Sealant adaptation and pene-tration into occlusal fissures. Am J Dent. 2009; 22(2): 89-91.

  27. Güçlü ZA, Dönmez N, Hurt A. Coleman N. Characterisation and microleakage of a new hydrophilic fissure sealant- UltraSeal Xt Hydro. J Appl Oral Sci. 2016; 24(4): 344-51.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com