Volume 10, Issue 2 (5-2022)
Jorjani Biomed J 2022, 10(2): 62-68 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
bahrololoomi Z, mehravar F, halvani N, saeid H. Evaluation of Microleakage of Self-Adhesive Composite Resin in Pits and Fissures of Extracted Premolar Teeth: An in Vitro Study. Jorjani Biomed J 2022; 10 (2) :62-68
URL: http://goums.ac.ir/jorjanijournal/article-1-868-en.html
URL: http://goums.ac.ir/jorjanijournal/article-1-868-en.html
1- Associated Professor, Department of pedodontics, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences,Yazd,Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of pedodontics, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences,Yazd,Iran
3- Dentist, Yazd, Iran ,fmehravar@ssu.ac.ir
2- Assistant Professor, Department of pedodontics, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences,Yazd,Iran
3- Dentist, Yazd, Iran ,
Abstract: (1630 Views)
Background and objectives: Microleakage at the interface of tooth structure and fissure sealant plays a crucial role in failure of the treatment. This in vitro study aimed to determine the microleakage of self-adhesive flowable composite resins as pit and fissure sealants.
Material and Methods: 60 healthy extracted premolar teeth were randomly divided into the 4 groups (n=15), group 1) clinpro sealants (control), group 2) flowable composite resin with bonding agent (total-etch), group 3) flowable composite resin with self-etch bonding agent, and group 4) self-adhesive composite resin. After thermocycling the specimens were immersed in 2% methylene blue for 48 hours and then sectioned in the buccolingual direction. The microleakage was assessed by dye penetration using a stereomicroscope at 15X magnification. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 18.0 as well as Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Results: There was a statistically significant difference in microleakage score between the groups (P-value = 0.006). The lowest mean of microleakage level was observed in the flowable composite group with total-etch bonding (group 2) 1.26±0.96, followed by the Clinpro sealant group (group 1) 1.62±1.20, and then the self-adhesive composite group (group 4) 1.85±1.00.
Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, the microleakage of self-adhesive composite resin revealed no significant difference with conventional fissure sealant; however, the microleakage of these composite resin was higher than flowable composite resin with total-etch bonding agent.
Material and Methods: 60 healthy extracted premolar teeth were randomly divided into the 4 groups (n=15), group 1) clinpro sealants (control), group 2) flowable composite resin with bonding agent (total-etch), group 3) flowable composite resin with self-etch bonding agent, and group 4) self-adhesive composite resin. After thermocycling the specimens were immersed in 2% methylene blue for 48 hours and then sectioned in the buccolingual direction. The microleakage was assessed by dye penetration using a stereomicroscope at 15X magnification. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 18.0 as well as Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Results: There was a statistically significant difference in microleakage score between the groups (P-value = 0.006). The lowest mean of microleakage level was observed in the flowable composite group with total-etch bonding (group 2) 1.26±0.96, followed by the Clinpro sealant group (group 1) 1.62±1.20, and then the self-adhesive composite group (group 4) 1.85±1.00.
Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, the microleakage of self-adhesive composite resin revealed no significant difference with conventional fissure sealant; however, the microleakage of these composite resin was higher than flowable composite resin with total-etch bonding agent.
Keywords: Dental Leakage [MeSH], Pit and Fissure Sealants [MeSH], Composite Resins [MeSH], Bicuspid [MeSH]
Full-Text [PDF 347 kb]
(666 Downloads)
| | Full-Text (HTML) (145 Views)
The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between groups.
The lowest mean of microleakage level was observed in the flowable composite group with total-etch bonding. The highest mean microleakage score was shown in the flowable composite group with self-etch bonding.
Type of Article: Original article |
Subject:
Health
Received: 2021/11/7 | Accepted: 2022/06/6 | Published: 2022/06/10
Received: 2021/11/7 | Accepted: 2022/06/6 | Published: 2022/06/10
References
1. Siegal MD, Farquhar CL, Bouchard JM. Dental sealants. Who needs them? Public health reports (Washington, DC : 1974). 1997;112(2):98-106; discussion 7. [view at publisher] [Google Scholar]
2. Boksman L, Carson B. Two-year retention and caries rates of UltraSeal XT and FluoroShield light-cured pit and fissure sealants. General dentistry. 1998;46(2):184-7. [view at publisher] [Google Scholar]
3. Birlbauer S, Chiang ML, Schuldt C, Pitchika V, Hickel R, Ilie N, et al. Shear bond strength and microleakage results for three experimental self-etching primer compositions for pit and fissure sealing. Clinical oral investigations. 2017;21(5):1465-73. [view at publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID] [Google Scholar]
4. Zyskind D, Zyskind K, Hirschfeld Z, Fuks AB. Effect of etching on leakage of sealants placed after air abrasion. Pediatric dentistry. 1998;20(1):25-7. [Google Scholar]
5. Barroso JM, Torres CP, Lessa FC, Pecora JD, Palma-Dibb RG, Borsatto MC. Shear bond strength of pit-and-fissure sealants to saliva-contaminated and noncontaminated enamel. Journal of dentistry for children (Chicago, Ill). 2005;72(3):95-9. [view at publisher] [Google Scholar]
6. Cueto EI, Buonocore MG. Sealing of pits and fissures with an adhesive resin: its use in caries prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939). 1967;75(1):121-8. [view at publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
7. Mertz-Fairhurst EJ, Fairhurst CW, Williams JE, Della-Giustina VE, Brooks JD. A comparative clinical study of two pit and fissure sealants: 7-year results in Augusta, GA. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939). 1984;109(2):252-5. [view at publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
8. Pardi V, Sinhoreti MA, Pereira AC, Ambrosano GM, Meneghim Mde C. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of different materials used as pit-and-fissure sealants. Brazilian dental journal. 2006;17(1):49-52. [view at publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
9. Samimi P, Barekatain M, Alaei S. Comparison of microleakage of composite restorations using fifth and sixth generation dentin bonding agent: an in vivo study. The journal of contemporary dental practice. 2012;13(5):632-6. [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
10. Fuks AB, Eidelman E, Lewinstein I. Shear strength of sealants placed with non-rinse conditioning compared to a conventional acid etch-rinse technique. ASDC journal of dentistry for children. 2002;69(3):239-42, 3. [view at publisher] [Google Scholar]
11. Perez-Lajarin L, Cortes-Lillo O, Garcia-Ballesta C, Cozar-Hidalgo A. Marginal microleakage of two fissure sealants: a comparative study. Journal of dentistry for children (Chicago, Ill). 2003;70(1):24-8. [view at publisher] [Google Scholar]
12. Sachdeva P, Goswami M, Singh D. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and nanoleakage of conventional and self-adhering flowable composites to primary teeth dentin. Contemporary clinical dentistry. 2016;7(3):326-31. [view at publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID] [Google Scholar]
13. Bahrololoomi Z, Razavi F, Soleymani AA. Comparison of Micro-Leakage from Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations in Cavities Prepared by Er:YAG (Erbium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet) Laser and Conventional Method in Primary Teeth. Journal of lasers in medical sciences. 2014;5(4):183-7. [view at publisher] [Google Scholar]
14. Gorseta K, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Vrazic T, Glavina D. An In-Vitro Analysis of Microleakage of Self-Adhesive Fissure Sealant vs. Conventional and GIC Fissure Sealants. Dentistry journal. 2019;7(2). [view at publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID] [Google Scholar]
15. Schuldt C, Birlbauer S, Pitchika V, Crispin A, Hickel R, Ilie N, et al. Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage of a New Self-etching/Self-adhesive Pit and Fissure Sealant. The journal of adhesive dentistry. 2015;17(6):491-7. [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
16. Simsek Derelioglu S, Yilmaz Y, Celik P, Carikcioglu B, Keles S. Bond strength and microleakage of self-adhesive and conventional fissure sealants. Dental materials journal. 2014;33(4):530-8. [view at publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
17. Margvelashvili M, Vichi A, Carrabba M, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Bond strength to unground enamel and sealing ability in pits and fissures of a new self-adhering flowable resin composite. The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. 2013;37(4):397-402. [view at publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
18. Pitchika V, Birlbauer S, Chiang ML, Schuldt C, Crispin A, Hickel R, et al. Shear bond strength and microleakage of a new self-etch adhesive pit and fissure sealant. Dental materials journal. 2018;37(2):266-71. [view at publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
