Abstract
Aim
Aim of the study was to compare how six different sealants resisted thermal, mechanical, and chemical loading in vitro.
Materials and methods
In all, 120 extracted human, nondecayed molars were divided into six groups (20 samples each) and embedded in resin blocks. The buccal surfaces of the tooth samples were polished and divided into three areas. Area A contained the product to be analyzed, area B was covered with colorless nail varnish (negative control), and area C remained untreated (positive control). The samples were stored in 0.1% thymol solution. To simulate a 3-month thermomechanical load, the samples were subjected to thermal cycling and a cleaning device. After 7 days incubation in a ten Cate demineralization solution (pH value: 4.6), the samples were dissected using a band saw and the lesion depths and demineralization areas were evaluated and compared microscopically.
Results
The tooth surfaces treated with PRO SEAL® showed no demineralization. Mean lesion depths of 108.1, 119.9, 154.9, 149.2, and 184.5 μm were found with Alpha-Glaze®, Seal&Protect®, Tiefenfluorid®, Protecto®, and Fluor Protector, respectively. There was a significant difference between PRO SEAL® and the other products (p > 0.0001). There was no significant difference between the other products.
Conclusion
PRO SEAL® resisted thermal, mechanical, and chemical loading in vitro, providing protection against white spot lesions.
Zusammenfassung
Ziel
Verglichen werden sollten sechs unterschiedliche Versiegler in Hinblick auf die Widerstandsfähigkeit gegenüber thermischen, mechanischen und chemischen Einflüssen in vitro.
Material und Methoden
Insgesamt 120 extrahierte humane, kariesfreie Molaren wurden 6 Gruppen à 20 zugeordnet und in Kunststoff eingebettet. Die Bukkalflächen der Zahnproben wurden poliert und in drei Bereiche eingeteilt: Bereich A enthielt das zu analysierende Produkt, Bereich B war mit farblosem Nagellack überzogen (Negativkontrolle) und Bereich C blieb unbehandelt (Positivkontrolle). Die Proben wurden in einer Thymollösung (0,1%) aufbewahrt. Zur Simulation einer 3‑monatigen thermomechanischen Belastung wurden die Proben Temperaturschwankungen und einer Reinigungsprozedur unterzogen. Im Anschluss an eine 7‑tägige Inkubationszeit in einer Demineralisierungslösung (ten Cate, pH-Wert 4,6) wurden die Proben mit einer Bandsäge zerteilt. Die demineralisierten Bereiche wurden evaluiert und mittels Lichtmikroskopie miteinander verglichen.
Ergebnisse
An den mit PRO SEAL® behandelten Zahnoberflächen zeigte sich keine Demineralisierung. Die Tiefe der Läsionen in den mit Alpha-Glaze®, Seal&Protect®, Tiefenfluorid®, Protecto® bzw. Fluor Protector behandelten Flächen betrug im Mittel 108,1, 119,9, 154,9, 149,2 und 184,5 μm. Ein statistisch signifikanter Unterschied (p > 0,0001) zeigte sich zwischen PRO SEAL® und allen anderen Produkten, keine signifikanten Unterschiede ergaben sich dagegen zwischen den anderen Produkten.
Schlussfolgerung
Der Versiegler PRO SEAL® zeigte in vitro Widerstandsfähigkeit gegenüber thermischen, mechanischen und chemischen Einflussfaktoren und schützte damit vor White-Spot-Läsionen.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnold M, Trost G (1972) Dependence of the brushing effect on different forms of the toothbrush head. Dtsch Stomatol 22:46–53
Brown W, Gregory T, Chow L (1977) Effects of fluoride on enamel solubility and cariostasis. Caries Res 11:118–141
Bruyn H de, Buskes H (1988) Caries preventive effectiveness of fluor protector and fluoride lacquer, duraphat under very cariogenic conditions. Oralprophylaxe 10:61–67
Buchalla W, Lennon AM, Trage K et al (2007) Enamel fluoride uptake following fluoride application and fluoride precipitation. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 117:118–122
Buren JL, Staley RN, Wefel J et al (2008) Inhibition of enamel demineralization by an enamel sealant, pro seal: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133(Suppl 4):S 88–S94
Cain K, Hicks J, English J et al (2006) In vitro enamel caries formation and orthodontic bonding agents. Am J Dent 19:187–192
Cate JM ten, Dundon KA, Vernon PG et al (1996) Preparation and measurement of artificial enamel lesions, a four-laboratory ring test. Caries Res 30:400–407
Ceen RF, Gwinnett AJ (1980) Microscopic evaluation of the thickness of sealants used in orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod 78:623–629
Dahlberg G (1940) Statistical methods for medical and biological students. Interscience Publications, New York
Demito CF, Vivaldi-Rodrigues G, Ramos AL et al (2004) The efficacy of a fluoride varnish in reducing enamel demineralization adjacent to orthodontic brackets: an in vitro study. Orthod Craniofac Res 7:205–210
Dyer D, Addy M, Newcombe RG (2000) Studies in vitro of abrasion by different manual toothbrush heads and a standard toothpaste. J Clin Periodontol 27:99–103
Engel S, Jost-Brinkmann P‑G, Spors CK et al (2009) Abrasive effect of air-powder polishing on smoothsurface sealants. J Orofac Orthop 70:363–370
Ferracane JL (1994) Elution of leachable components from composites. J Oral Rehabil 21:441–452
Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ (1982) Incidence of white spot formation after bonding and banding. Am J Orthod 81:93–98
Hu W, Featherstone JD (2005) Prevention of enamel demineralization: an in-vitro study using light-cured filled sealant. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128:592–600
Ingram GS, Silverstone LM (1981) A chemical and histological study of artificial caries in human dental enamel in vitro. Caries Res 15:393–398
Linden RP van der, Dermaut LR (1998) White spot formation under orthodontic bands cemented with glass ionomer with or without fluor protector. Eur J Orthod 20:219–224
Lopatiene K, Borisovaite M, Lapenaite E (2016) Prevention and treatment of white spot lesions during andafter treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances: a systematic literature review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 7:e1
Paschos E, Okuka S, Ilie N et al (2006) Investigation of shear-peel bond strength of orthodontic brackets on enamel after using pro seal. J Orofac Orthop 67:196–206
Paschos E, Kleinschrodt T, Clementino-Luedemann T et al (2009) Effect of different bonding agents on prevention of enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135:603–612
Perrini F, Lombardo L, Arreghini A et al (2016) Caries prevention during orthodontic treatment: in-vivo assessment of high-fluoride varnish to prevent white spot lesions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 149:238–243
Pinar Erdem A, Sepet E, Kulekci G et al (2012) Effects of two fluoride varnishes and one fluoride/chlorhexidine varnish on streptococcus mutans and streptococcus sobrinus biofilm formation in vitro. Int J Med Sci 9:129–136
Pratt KC, Hicks J, English JD et al (2010) Fluoride-releasing orthodontic adhesives and topical fluoride effect on enamel caries formation: an in vitro study. Am J Dent 23:179–184
Rosenbloom RG, Tinanoff N (1991) Salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients before, during and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 100:35–37
Sachs L (2004) Angewandte Statistik – Anwendung statistischer Methoden, 11th edn. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 1–177
Schlagenhauf U, Tobien P, Engelfried P (1989) Effects of orthodontic treatment on individual caries risk parameters. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 44:758–760
Soliman MM, Bishara SE, Wefel J et al (2006) Fluoride release rate from an orthodontic sealant and its clinical implications. Angle Orthod 76:282–288
Srivastava K, Tikku T, Khanna R et al (2013) Risk factors and management of white spot lesions in orthodontics. J Orthod Sci 2:43–49
Stecksén-Blicks C, Renfors G, Oscarson ND et al (2007) Caries-preventive effectiveness of a fluoride varnish: a randomized controlled trial in adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances. Caries Res 41:455–459
Tanna N, Kao E, Gladwin M et al (2009) Effects of sealant and self-etching primer on enamel decalcification. Part I: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135:199–205
Tran P, Hamood A, Mosley T et al (2013) Organo-selenium-containing dental sealant inhibits bacterial biofilm. J Dent Res 92:461–466
Visel D, Jäcker T, Jost-Brinkmann P‑G, Präger T‑M (2014) Demineralization adjacent to orthodontic brackets after application of conventional and self-etching primer systems. J Orofac Orthop 75:358–373
Wicht MJ, Haak R, Lummert D et al (2003) Treatment of root caries lesions with chlorhexidine-containing varnishes and dentin sealants. Am J Dent 16:25 A–30 A
Øgaard B, Rølla G, Helgeland K (1984) Fluoride retention in sound and demineralized enamel in vivo after treatment with a fluoride varnish (Duraphat). Scand J Dent Res 92:190–197
Øgaard B, Larsson E, Henriksson T et al (2001) Effects of combined application of antimicrobial and fluoride varnishes in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 120:28–35
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
S.L. Coordes, P.-G. Jost-Brinkmann, T.M. Präger, T. Bartzela, D. Visel, T. Jäcker and R. Müller-Hartwich declare that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coordes, S.L., Jost-Brinkmann, PG., Präger, T.M. et al. A comparison of different sealants preventing demineralization around brackets. J Orofac Orthop 79, 49–56 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0116-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0116-y