Evaluation of different types of enamel conditioning before application of a fissure sealant
- 556 Downloads
The aim of the study was to compare fissure sealant quality after mechanical conditioning of erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Er:YAG) laser or air abrasion prior to chemical conditioning of phosphoric acid etching or of a self-etch adhesive. Twenty-five permanent molars were initially divided into three groups: control group (n = 5), phosphoric acid etching; test group 1 (n = 10), air abrasion; and test group 2, (n = 10) Er:YAG laser. After mechanical conditioning, the test group teeth were sectioned buccolingually and the occlusal surface of one half tooth (equal to one sample) was acid etched, while a self-etch adhesive was applied on the other half. The fissure system of each sample was sealed, thermo-cycled and immersed in 5 % methylene dye for 24 h. Each sample was sectioned buccolingually, and one slice was analysed microscopically. Using specialized software microleakage, unfilled margin, sealant failure and unfilled area proportions were calculated. A nonparametric ANOVA model was applied to compare the Er:YAG treatment with that of air abrasion and the self-etch adhesive with phosphoric acid (α = 0.05). Test groups were compared to the control group using Wilcoxon rank sum tests (α = 0.05). The control group displayed significantly lower microleakage but higher unfilled area proportions than the Er:YAG laser + self-etch adhesive group and displayed significantly higher unfilled margin and unfilled area proportions than the air-abrasion + self-etch adhesive group. There was no statistically significant difference in the quality of sealants applied in fissures treated with either Er:YAG laser or air abrasion prior to phosphoric acid etching, nor in the quality of sealants applied in fissures treated with either self-etch adhesive or phosphoric acid following Er:YAG or air-abrasion treatment.
KeywordsFissure sealants Air abrasion Er:YAG laser Self-etch adhesive Phosphoric acid
The authors would like to thank S. Hayoz and Prof. Dr. J. Hüsler, Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern for statistical analyses.
- 3.Gooch BF, Griffin SO, Gray SK, Kohn WG, Rozier RG, Siegal M, Fontana M, Brunson D, Carter N, Curtis DK, Donly KJ, Haering H, Hill LF, Hinson HP, Kumar J, Lampiris L, Mallatt M, Meyer DM, Miller WR, Sanzi-Schaedel SM, Simonsen R, Truman BI, Zero DT (2009) Preventing dental caries through school-based sealant programs: updated recommendations and reviews of evidence. J Am Dent Assoc 140(11):1356–1365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Braga MM, Martignon S, Ekstrand KR, Ricketts DN, Imparato JC, Mendes FM (2010) Parameters associated with active caries lesions assessed by two different visual scoring systems on occlusal surfaces of primary molars—a multilevel approach. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 38(6):549–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Borsatto MC, Corona SA, Ramos RP, Liporaci JL, Pecora JD, Palma-Dibb RG (2004) Microleakage at sealant/enamel interface of primary teeth: effect of Er:YAG laser ablation of pits and fissures. J Dent Child (Chic) 71(2):143–147Google Scholar