Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laboratory evaluation of toothbrush/toothpaste abrasion resistance after smooth enamel surface sealing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The use of dental sealants has been extended to smooth enamel surfaces. The present study was conducted to test the in vitro performance of four sealants with different characteristics (highly and lowly filled, self-etching features).

Materials and methods

Eighty human teeth (lower incisors and premolars) were randomly divided into following sealant test groups: ProSealTM, LightBondTM, OrthoSoloTM, and Seal&Protect®. Twenty untreated teeth served as a control group. Tooth brushing was conducted for a period of time simulating 12, 18, and 24 months. During the toothbrush abrasion protocol, the specimens were subjected to thermal and acidic challenge. Sealant thickness was determined with μCT imaging, and qualitative and quantitative surface effects were investigated using stereo microscopy and raster electron microscopy, respectively. Data were subjected to t test or Kruskal–Wallis/Mann–Whitney tests (alpha, 5 %).

Results

The wear behavior and film integrity of highly filled sealants were superior to lowly filled sealants. Even after 1 year of tooth brushing, significant surface deterioration with deleterious loss of enamel and discoloration was observed in all tested materials (χ2 = 15.349; P = 0.004). The size of the observed defects increased over time.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the application of sealants on smooth enamel surfaces should be limited to special indications, and their usefulness has to be revisited.

Clinical relevance

Based on the results of this in vitro study, the general overall application of enamel sealants needs to be questioned.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bishara SE, Oonsombat C, Soliman MM, Warren J (2005) Effects of using a new protective sealant on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 75:239–242

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schmidlin PR, Zehnder M, Zimmermann MA, Zimmermann J, Roos M, Roulet JF (2005) Sealing smooth enamel surfaces with a newly devised adhesive patch: a radiochemical in vitro analysis. Dent Mater 21:545–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schmidlin PR, Göhring TN, Sener N, Lutz F (2002) Resistance of an enamel-bonding agent to saliva and acid exposure in vitro assessed by liquid scintillation. Dent Mater 18:343–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Banks PA, Richmond S (1994) Enamel sealants: a clinical evaluation of their value during fixed appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod 16:19–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ceen RF, Gwinnett AJ (1980) Microscopic evaluation of the thickness of sealants used in orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod 78:623–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fornell AC, Sköld-Larsson K, Hallgren A, Bergstrand F, Twetman S (2002) Effect of a hydrophobic tooth coating on gingival health, mutans streptococci, and enamel demineralization in adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances. Acta Odontol Scand 60:37–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Frazier MC, Southard TE, Doster PM (1996) Prevention of enamel demineralization during orthodontic treatment: an in vitro study using pit and fissure sealants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 110:459–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kersten S, Lutz F, Schupbach P (2001) Fissure sealing: optimization of sealant penetration and sealing properties. Am J Dent 14:127–131

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lussi A, Jaeggi T, Gerber C, Megert (2004) Effect of amine/sodium fluoride rinsing on toothbrush abrasion of softened enamel in situ. Caries Res 38:567–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Vogel K (2005) Filler features and their effects on wear and degree of conversion of particulate dental resin composites. Biomaterials 26:4932–4937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wicht MJ, Haak R, Lummert D, Noack M (2003) Treatment of root caries lesions with chlorhexidine-containing varnishes and dentin sealants. Am J Dent 16:25A–30A

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Momoi Y, Hirosaki K, Kohno A, McCabe JF (1997) In vitro toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion of resin-modified glass ionomers. Dent Mater 13:82–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sakaguchi RI, Douglas WH, Delong R, Pintado MR (1986) The wear of a posterior composite in an artificial mouth: a clinical correlation. Dent Mater 2:235–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Speranza G, Gottardi G, Pederzolli C, Lunelli L, Canteri R, Paquardini L et al (2004) Role of chemical interactions in material adhesion to polymer surfaces. Biomaterials 24:2029–2037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schmidlin PR, Goehring TN, Roos M, Zehnder M (2006) Wear resistance and surface roughness of a newly devised adhesive patch for sealing smooth enamel surface. Oper Dent 31:115–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Boyd RL, McLey L, Zahradnik R (1997) Clinical and laboratory evaluation of powered electric toothbrushes: in vivo determination of average force for use of manual and powered toothbrushes. J Clin Dent 8:72–75

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Reynolds IR (1976) A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Brit J Orthod 2:171–178

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zachrisson BU (1977) A post treatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod 71:173–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Newman GV (1978) A post treatment survey of direct bonding of metal brackets. Am J Orthod 74:323–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zachrisson BU, Heimgard E, Ruyter IE, Mjoer IA (1979) Problems with sealants for bracket bonding. Am J Orthod 75:641–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang WN, Tarng TH (1991) Evaluation of the sealant in orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 100:209–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Warren PR, Cugini M, Marks P, King DW (2001) Safety, efficacy and acceptability of a new power toothbrush: a 3-month comparative clinical investigation. Am J Dent 14:3–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Steffen JM (1996) The effects of soft drinks on etched and sealed enamel. Angle Orthod 66:449–456

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Eygen I, Vannet BV, Wehrbein H (2005) Influence of a soft drink with low pH on enamel surfaces: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128:372–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barclay CW, Spence D, Laird WR (2005) Intra-oral temperatures during function. J Oral Rehabil 32:886–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pazinatto FB, Campos BB, Costa LC, Atta MT (2003) Effect of the number of thermocycles on micro leakage of resin composite restorations. Pesqui Odontol Bras 17:337–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Azzopardi A, Bartlett DW, Watson TF, Sherriff M (2004) The surface effects of erosion and abrasion on dentine with and without a protective layer. Br Dent J 196:351–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Attin T, Buchalla W, Trett A, Hellwig E (1998) Tooth brushing abrasion of polyacid-modified composites in neutral and acidic buffer solutions. J Prosthet Dent 80:148–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Arndt F. Schilling

    Present address: Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dental and Oral Medicine, Philipps University Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Str. 3, 35037, Marburg, Germany

    Heike M. Korbmacher-Steiner & Lothar G. Huck

  2. Department of Osteology and Biomechanics, University Medical Center Hamburg–Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Arndt F. Schilling & Michael Amling

  3. Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Hamburg–Eppendorf, Haus Ost 53 (O53) Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Bärbel Kahl-Nieke

Authors
  1. Heike M. Korbmacher-Steiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arndt F. Schilling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lothar G. Huck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bärbel Kahl-Nieke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Amling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heike M. Korbmacher-Steiner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Korbmacher-Steiner, H.M., Schilling, A.F., Huck, L.G. et al. Laboratory evaluation of toothbrush/toothpaste abrasion resistance after smooth enamel surface sealing. Clin Oral Invest 17, 765–774 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0771-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0771-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation