Microleakage and penetration depth of different fissure sealant materials after cyclic thermo-mechanic and brushing simulation
Source abstract
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate microleakage and the penetration-depths of different fissure-sealant materials applied with/without enameloplasty after cyclic aging. One-hundred-sixty mandibular molars were divided into non-invasive and enameloplasty preparation groups and eight material subgroups, including: flowable composites (microhyrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled), three resin-based (unfilled, filled, and highly-filled), a giomer-based, and a glass-ionomer-based fissure sealant. Specimens were subjected to two-year cyclic chewing and brushing simulation. After 5% basic-fuchsin dye penetration, specimens were sectioned and scored under stereomicroscope. Kruskal-Wallis statistical data showed that preparation type significantly affected the penetration of all tested materials (p<0.05), but not significantly affected microleakage (p>0.05). Flowable composites showed the best and the glass-ionomer-based sealant showed the worst penetration and microleakage. Slight preparation of fissures is not important in microleakage. However, enameloplasty significantly enhanced the depth of penetration of the sealants. Flowable composites offer promising results at the fissure sealing.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Izmir Katip Celebi University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry
Private practitioner
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. 1) Herle G, Joseph T, Varma B, Jayanthi M. Comparative evaluation of glass lonomer and resin based fissure sealant using noninvasive and invasive techniques: A SEM and microleakage study. J Indian Soc Pedo Prev Dent 2004; 22: 56-62.
2. 2) Ratnaditya A, Kumar MGM, Avula SS, Jogendra MZ, Kandregula CR, Chowdhary Kopuri RK. Clinical evaluation of retention in hydrophobic and hydrophillic pit and fissure sealants: a two year follow-up study. J Young Pharm 2015; 7: 171-179.10.5530/jyp.2015.3.6 ↗
3. 3) Aguilar F, Drubi-Filho B, Casemiro L, Watanabe M, Pires-de-Souza F. Retention and penetration of a conventional resin-based sealant and a photochromatic flowable composite resin placed on occlusal pits and fissures. J Indian Soc Pedo Prev Dent 2007; 25: 169-173.10.4103/0970-4388.37012 ↗
4. 4) Blackwood JA, Dilley D, Roberts M, Swift E. Evaluation of pumice, fissure enameloplasty and air abrasion on sealant microleakage. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 199-203.
5. 5) 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 Paediatr Dent 2013; 23: 13-22.10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01218.x ↗
6. 6) Feigal RJ. The use of pit and fissure sealants. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 415-422.
7. 7) Wright JT, Tampi MP, Graham L, Estrich C, Crall JJ, Fontana M, Gillette EJ, Nový BB, Dhar V, Donly K, Hewlett ER, Quinonez RB, Chaffin J, Crespin M, Iafolla T, Siegal MD, Carrasco-Labra A. Sealants for preventing and arresting pit-and-fissure occlusal caries in primary and permanent molars. Pediatr Dent 2016; 38: 282-308.10.1016/j.adaj.2016.06.003 ↗
8. 8) Godhane A, Ukey A, Tote JV, Das G, Naphde M, Patil P. Use of pit and fissure sealant in prevention of dental caries in pediatric dentistry and recent advancement: A review. Int J Dent Med Res 2015; 1: 220-223.
9. 9) Youssef M, Youssef F, Souza-Zaroni W, Turbino M, Vieira M.Effect of enamel preparation method on in vitro marginal microleakage of a flowable composite used as pit and fissure sealant. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006; 16: 342-347.10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00751.x ↗
10. 10) Ernst CP, Galler P, Willershausen B, Haller B. Marginal integrity of class V restorations: SEM versus dye penetration. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 319-327.10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.002 ↗
11. 11) Symons A, Chu C, Meyers I. The effect of fissure morphology and pretreatment of the enamel surface on penetration and adhesion of fissure sealants. J Oral Rehabil 1996; 23: 791-798.10.1046/j.1365-2842.1996.d01-202.x ↗
12. 12) Rodriguez TM, Ardu S, Daeniker L, Krejci I. Evaluation of marginal adaptation, seal and resistance against fatigue cracks of different pit and fissure sealants under laboratory load. Am J Dent 2011; 24: 367-371.
13. 13) Jung YS, Lee JW, Choi YJ, Ahn JS, Shin SW, Huh JB. A study on the in-vitro wear of the natural tooth structure by opposing zirconia or dental porcelain. J Adv Prosthodont 2010; 2: 111-115.10.4047/jap.2010.2.3.111 ↗
14. 14) Lopes MB, Saquy PC, Moura SK, Wang L, Graciano FMO, Correr Sobrinho L, Gonini Jr A. Effect of different surface penetrating sealants on the roughness of a nanofiller composite resin. Braz Dent J 2012; 23: 692-697.10.1590/S0103-64402012000600011 ↗
15. 15) Takahashi R, Jin J, Nikaido T, Tagami J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH. Surface characterization of current composites after toothbrush abrasion. Dent Mater J 2013; 32: 75-82.10.4012/dmj.2012-160 ↗
16. 16) Zervou C, Kugel G, Leone C, Zavras A, Doherty E, White G. Enameloplasty effects on microleakage of pit and fissure sealants under load: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2000; 24: 279-285.10.17796/jcpd.24.4.e491n06064j85285 ↗
17. 17) Pardi V, Sinhoreti MAC, Pereira AC, Ambrosano GMB, Meneghim MdC. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of different materials used as pit-and-fissure sealants. Braz Dent J 2006; 17: 49-52.10.1590/S0103-64402006000100011 ↗
18. 18) Kane B, Karren J, Garcia-Godoy C, Garcia-Godoy F. Sealant adaptation and penetration into occlusal fissures. Am J Dent 2009; 22: 89-91.
19. 19) Hiremath S. Textbook of preventive and community dentistry. 2. edition ed: Haryana, Elsevier India; 2011.p. 429-432.
20. 20) Baygin O, Korkmaz FM, Tüzüner T, Tanriver M. The effect of different enamel surface treatments on the microleakage of fissure sealants. Lasers Med Sci 2012; 27: 153-160.10.1007/s10103-011-0918-x ↗
21. 21) Simonsen R, Neal R. A review of the clinical application and performance of pit and fissure sealants. Aust Dent J 2011; 56: 45-58.10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01295.x ↗
22. 22) Heintze SD. Clinical relevance of tests on bond strength, microleakage and marginal adaptation. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 59-84.10.1016/j.dental.2012.07.158 ↗
23. 23) Salama F, Al-Hammad N. Marginal seal of sealant and compomer materials with and without enameloplasty. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002; 12: 39-46.10.1046/j.0960-7439.2001.00320.x ↗
24. 24) Chaitra T, Subba Reddy V, Devarasa G, Ravishankar T. Microleakage and SEM analysis of flowable resin used as a sealant following three fissure preparation techniques —an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011; 35: 277-282.10.17796/jcpd.35.3.7x217772q7146288 ↗
25. 25) Francescut P, Lussi A. Performance of a conventional sealant and a flowable composite on minimally invasive prepared fissures. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 543-550.10.2341/05-91 ↗
26. 26) Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 393-414.
27. 27) Bagherian A, Shirazi AS, Sadeghi R. Adhesive systems under fissure sealants: yes or no?: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2016; 147: 446-456.10.1016/j.adaj.2016.01.014 ↗
28. 28) Geiger S, Gulayev S, Weiss E. Improving fissure sealant quality: mechanical preparation and filling level. J Dent 2000; 28: 407-412.10.1016/S0300-5712(00)00016-6 ↗
29. 29) Garcia-Godoy F, de Araujo FB. Enhancement of fissure sealant penetration andadaptation: The enameloplasty technique. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1994; 19: 13-19.
30. 30) Khanna R, Pandey RK, Singh N. Morphology of pits and fissures reviewed through scanning electron microscope. Dentistry 2015; 2015; 5: 287-290.
31. 31) Simsek derelioglu S, Yilmaz Y, Celik P, Carikcioglu B, Keles S. Bond strength and microleakage of self-adhesive and conventional fissure sealants. Dent Mater J 2014; 33: 530-538.10.4012/dmj.2013-227 ↗
32. 32) Joseph T, Jayanthi M. Comparative evaluation of glass lonomer and resin based fissure sealant using noninvasive and invasive techniques: A SEM and microleakage study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2004; 22: 56-62.
33. 33) Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Craig’s restorative dental materials. 13th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.p.147-161.
34. 34) Kumaran P. Clinical evaluation of the retention of different pit and fissure sealants: a 1-year study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013; 6: 183-187.10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1215 ↗