Comparison of acid versus laser etching on the clinical performance of a fissure sealant: 24-month results.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of a pit and fissure sealant placed with the use of different enamel preparation methods, i.e. acid or Er,Cr:YSGG laser etching, over 24 months. METHODS: Sixteen subjects (15 female, 1 male) with no restorations or sealant present on their fissures and no detectable caries participated. Using a table of random numbers, a total of 112 sealants (56 with acid-etching, 56 with laser etching) were placed on the permanent premolar and molar teeth. All restorative procedures except for application of the laser were performed by the same dentist. After completion of the fissure preparation either with acid or laser, the adhesive was applied; then a pit and fissure sealant, Clinpro Sealant, was placed and polymerized. Clinical evaluations were done at baseline and at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up visits by two calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which etching method had been used. The retention of sealants and caries were evaluated with the aid of a dental explorer and an intra-oral mirror. Each sealant was evaluated using the following criteria: 1=completely retained; 2= partial loss; 3= total loss. The Pearson chi-square test was used to evaluate differences in the retention rates among the sealants used with different etching methods. RESULTS: All patients attended the 24-month follow-up visit and all sealants were evaluated (total recall rate 100%). At the end of 24 months, 83.9% of the sealants from laser group and 85.7% of those from acid-etch group were recorded as "completely retained". There were no statistically significant differences in retention rates among the preparation methods after all evaluation periods (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between the retention rates of premolar and molars at each evaluation period. No secondary caries was detected in association with any sealants. CONCLUSION: The clinical performance of fissure sealants placed after acid or Er,Cr:YSGG laser etching was similar.

A 48-month clinical evaluation of fissure sealants placed with different adhesive systems.

AIM: To compare the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 48 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors enrolled 244 teeth, each with no restoration or sealant and no detectable caries, from 16 patients. The sealants were placed with Solobond M two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or Futurabond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = completely retained, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. The Pearson χ (2) test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period. RESULTS: The retention rates for sealants in the Solobond M group were significantly higher than those in the Futurabond NR group in all periods of evaluation (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference between the retention rates for premolars and molars was found at each evaluation period (p>0.05). There was no new caries formation throughout the 48-month recall period. CONCLUSION: Fissure sealants placed with etch-and-rinse adhesive showed better retention rates than those placed with self-etch adhesive.

Sealant and composite bond strength to enamel with antibacterial/self-etching adhesives.

INTRODUCTION: The enamel in pits and fissures undergoing preventive or ultraconservative resin restorations may be affected by secondary caries. An antibacterial adhesive bond may be a useful choice to prevent and reduce demineralization. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the shear bond strength of an experimental antibacterial bond, a self-etch bond, and an ormocer-based adhesive bond using an ormocer-based fissure sealant and a composite resin on intact enamel. METHODS: Twenty-four extracted human molars were sectioned bucco-lingually to obtain two flat and sound enamel surfaces. Forty-eight specimens were randomly assigned into four groups. The groups were prepared to receive the following treatments: (1) Admira Bond + Admira Seal (n = 10); (2) ABF Bond + Admira Seal (n = 11); (3) Clearfil SE Bond + Clearfil AP-X (n = 12); and (4) ABF Bond + Clearfil AP-X (n = 11). A cylindrical mould was placed over the bonded surface, and both materials were applied according to the instructions. The teeth were thermocycled 500 cycles between 5 and 55 degrees with a dwell time of 30 s. For shear bond strength testing, the load was applied vertically to the base of the mould. The cross-head speed was 5 mm min(-1). RESULTS: The maximum load that a specimen can withstand until failure was determined and shear bond strength was calculated by dividing the load at failure by the surface area of the mould. The results (median, minimum and maximum, respectively) for the four groups were: (1) 7.9, 4.2 and 13.6 MPa; (2) 8.6, 2.6 and 15.9 MPa; (3) 5.9, 5.3 and 8.2 MPa; and (4) 8.8, 3.0 and 19.2 MPa. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests were performed for the statistical analysis. Groups 3 and 4 were statistically significantly different (P = 0.005; P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the sealant and composite groups for ABF (P = 0.375). Fracture sites were viewed by microscope under x 16 magnification to determine if the mode of failure was adhesive or cohesive. The results (number of adhesive failed specimens and number of cohesive failed specimens, respectively) for the four groups were: (1) 7 and 3; (2) 3 and 8; (3) 2 and 9; and (4) 8 and 3. CONCLUSION: The ABF bond has sufficiently physical qualities to be used under fissure sealant and composite resin on uncut enamel, its antibacterial efficiency notwithstanding.