in vitro evaluation of marginal leakage using invasive and noninvasive technique of light cure glass ionomer and flowable polyacid modified composite resin used as pit and fissure sealant.

Aim: This study compared the microleakage of light cure glass ionomer and flowable compomer as pit and fissure sealant, with and without tooth preparation. Materials and Methods: One hundred premolars that were extracted for orthodontic purpose were used. After adequate storage and surface debridement, the teeth were randomly divided into four groups. In Group I and III, the occlusal surfaces were left intact, while in Group II and Group IV, tooth surfaces were prepared. Teeth in Group I and Group II were sealed with Light cure glass ionomer, whereas flowable compomer was used to seal teeth in Group III and IV. The sealed teeth were then immersed in dye. Subsequently, buccolingual sections were made and each section was examined under stereomicroscope for microleakage followed by scoring. Results: In group I, microleakage score ranged from 2 to 4 with mean of 3.64 (±0.757), while in group II the range was observed to be 1-4 with mean of 2.88 (±1.236). Group III recorded a range of 0-4 with the mean of 2.20 (±1.443) while 0-2 and 0.60 (±0.707) being the range and mean observed, respectively, for group IV. Conclusion: Flowable compomer placed after tooth preparation showed better penetration and less marginal leakage than the light cure glass ionomer.

Effect of light curing unit on resin-modified glass-ionomer cements: a microhardness assessment

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the microhardness of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGICs) photoactivated with a blue light-emitting diode (LED) curing light. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty specimens were distributed in 3 groups: Fuji II LC Improved/GC (RM1), Vitremer/3M ESPE (RM2) and Filtek Z250/ 3M ESPE (RM3). Two commercial light-curing units were used to polymerize the materials: LED/Ultrablue IS and a halogen light/XL3000 (QTH). After 24 h, Knoop microhardness test was performed. Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at a pre-set alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: At the top surface, no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in the microhardness was seen when the LED and QTH lights were used for all materials. At the bottom surface, microhardness mean value of RM2 was significantly higher when the QTH light was used (p<0.05). For RM1, statistically significant higher values (p<0.05) were seen when the LED light was used. No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was seen at the bottom surface for RM3, irrespective of the light used. Top-to-bottom surface comparison showed no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) for both RMGICs, regardless of the light used. For RM3, microhardness mean value at the top was significantly higher (p<0.05) than bottom microhardness when both curing units were used. CONCLUSION: The microhardness values seen when a LED light was used varied depending on the restorative material tested.

Effect of gamma irradiation on fluoride release and antibacterial activity of resin dental materials

This study evaluated the effect of gamma irradiation on fluoride release and antibacterial activity of FluroShield (FS) and Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB). Four groups were formed: G1-FS + gamma; G2-FS without gamma; G3-CPB + gamma; G4-CPB without gamma. For fluoride release analysis, 12 disks of each material were prepared and covered with nail polish, except for one side (50.4 mm² area). G1 and G3 were sterilized with a 14.5 KGy dose at 27ºC for 24 h, while G2 and G4 (controls) were not sterilized and were maintained under the same time and temperature conditions. Fluoride release measurements were made in duplicate (n=6) by an ion specific electrode. The antibacterial activity of the CPB and FS against Streptococcus mutans after gamma sterilization was evaluated by the agar-disc diffusion method. The diameter of the zones of microbial growth inhibition was recorded after 48 h. Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=5 percent). Gamma sterilization decreased the fluoride release of FS by approximately 50 percent, while CPB was not affected. There was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in the antibacterial effect of CPB between gamma and non-gamma sterilization groups. FS presented no antibacterial activity. Gamma irradiation decreased the fluoride release of FS, but did not affect the antibacterial activity of the studied materials.

Este estudo avaliou o efeito da esterilização com raios-gama na liberação de flúor e atividade antibacteriana de materiais resinosos, Fluroshield (FS) e Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB). Quatro grupos foram formados: G1-FS e gama; G2-FS sem gama; G3-CPB e gama; G4-CPB sem gama. Doze discos de cada material foram preparados para análise de liberação de flúor, os quais foram cobertos com esmalte de unha, exceto em um lado com 50,4 mm² de área. G1 e G3 foram esterilizados com dose de 14,5 KGy por 24 h/27ºC, enquanto G2 e G4 (controles) não foram esterilizados e foram mantidos sob as mesmas condições de tempo e temperatura. As leituras de liberação de flúor foram feitas em duplicata (n=6) por um eletrodo específico. A atividade antibacteriana foi avaliada pelo teste de difusão em agar. Os halos de inibição foram medidos após 48 h. Os dados foram analisados pelos testes ANOVA e Tukey (α=5 por cento). A esterilização gama diminuiu a liberação de flúor de FS em cerca de 50 por cento, enquanto CPB não foi afetado. Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre os grupos esterilizados e controle no efeito antibacteriano do CPB. FS não apresentou atividade antibacteriana. A esterilização gama diminuiu a liberação de flúor de FS, mas não afetou a atividade antibacteriana dos materiais estudados.