Montes OGS, Morales ZC, Yamamoto NJA

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 208-212
PDF size: 241.33 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Fissure sealants can prevent caries and demineralization process of dental enamel, however, sealants could increase the risk of caries when weak sealing provokes microleakage of substances and bacteria through the tooth and the sealant. A longitudinal and experimental study using 50 healthy teeth (bicuspid) and without restorations is presented, these teeth were divided in 4 groups: Every group was analyzed considering the following factors: Group 1: prophylaxis, acid etching and sealant, Group 2: prophylaxis, adhesive and sealant application, Group 3: prophylaxis, acid etching, salivary contamination and sealant application, Group 4: prophylaxis, salivary contamination, adhesive and sealant application. All groups were thermocycled at 500 cycles, tinged with methylene blue and seen with a microscope. The results showed that Group 4 was the one with a higher microleakage (61.5%). Group 3 had the higher percentage of detachment of the fissure sealant (41.5%). Group 1, which was treated with sealant using the conventional technique, showed the lower percentage of microleakage (32%). In relation to detached sealant it is concluded that the saliva used in Group 4 promoted the adhesion since it showed a lower percentage of removed sealant (20.5%). It was concluded that sealant application with the conventional technique obtained best results. The use of adhesive before the application of sealant showed microleakage. Teeth with saliva avoided the detachment of the sealant, it is assumed this fact might have happened because of the adhesive viscosity is diminished in contact with saliva, obtaining a better adhesion.

REFERENCES

1. Van Waes H, Stöckli P. Atlas de odontología pediátrica. España: Ed Masson, 2002: 203-208.

2. Dasanayake AP, Li Y, Philip S. Pediatric Dentistry 2001; 23: 401-406.

3. Gillet D. Microleakage and penetration depth of three types of materials in fissure sealant: self primer vs etching. J Clin Pead Dent 2002; 26: 175-178.

4. Hebling J, Feigal RJ. Use of one bottle adhesive as an intermediate bonding layer to reduce sealant microleakage on saliva- contaminated enamel. Am Dent J 2000; 13: 187-191.

5. Miranda RH, Yagüe R, Da Motta J. Microleakage of an universal adhesive used as a fissure sealant. Am Dent J 1998; 3: 109-113.

6. Kersten S, Lutz F, Shüpbach P. Fissure sealing: optimization of sealant penetration and sealing properties. Am J Dent 2001; 14: 127-131.

7. Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatric Dentistry 2002; 24: 393-414.

8. Silverstone LM, Hicks MJ, Feathertone MJ. Oral fluid contamination of etched enamel surfaces. J Am Dent Assoc 1985; 110: 329-332.

9. Tulunoglu Ö, Bodur H. The effect of bonding agents on the microleakage and bond strength of sealant in primary teeth. J Oral Rehab 1999; 26: 436-441.

10. Feigal RJ, Qhelhas I. Clinical trial of a self etching adhesive for sealant application. Am Dent J 2003; 16: 249-251.

11. Ficha técnica: AdheSE (Ivoclar Vivadent MR) 2005.

12. Duangthip D, Lussi A. Microleakage and penetration ability of resin sealant versus bonding system when applied following contamination. Pediatric Dentistry 2003; 25: 505-511.

13. Borsatto MC, Milori SA. Influence of salivary contamination on marginal microleakage of pit and fissure sealants. Am J Dent 2004; 17: 365-367.

14. Duangthip D, Lussi A. Effects of fissure cleaning methods, drying agents, and fissure morphology on microleakage and penetration ability of sealants in vitro. Pediatric Dentistry 2003; 25: 527-533.