Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 26–31 | Cite as

Microleakage of three different sealants on sound and questionable occlusal surfaces of permanent molars: An in vitro study

  • M. G. Michalaki
  • C. J. OulisEmail author
  • P. Lagouvardos
Article

Abstract

AIM: This was to evaluate the microleakage of 3 different sealants, applied on sound and questionably carious occlusal surfaces with and without a bonding agent. METHODS: A total of 120 human molars were selected, photographed with a digital video microscope, and assigned by 3 independent examiners, according to the criteria of ICDAS II, in 2 groups of 60 teeth each. Group A: teeth with deep, clear, sound occlusal surfaces (ICDAS II, code 0). Group B: teeth with questionable occlusal surfaces, having deep, stained pits and fissures with probable incipient, but non-cavitated, carious lesions (ICDAS II, codes 1 and 2). Each group was divided into 2 subgroups of 30 teeth each (bonding or no bonding) and then into 3 subgroups of 10 teeth each according to the type of sealant used: one conventional (Conseal®) and 2 fluoridated (Conseal F® and Teethmate F®). After the application of the bonding agent and the sealant to the appropriate teeth, all specimens were subjected to thermal cycling and immersed in a 10% methylene blue dye solution for 4 hours. Average and summed microleakage for each sample were estimated from dye penetration scores on 3 mesiodistal sections of the tooth across the sealed occlusal surface. Nonparametric Friedman’s 2-way ANOVA by ranks and Conover-Inman pair wise comparisons were used for differences at the 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: According to Friedman’s 2-way ANOVA by ranks analysis, although there were no significant differences between the different sealants (χ2= 0.048, df = 2, P =.976), there were significant differences between the sound and questionably carious occlusal surfaces (χ2 = 24, df = 3,.000). Conover-Inman pair wise comparisons showed no differences between the groups using and not using bonding agents, on sound (SNB-SWB, P =.4561) or questionable occlusal surfaces (QNB-QWB, P =.0842). CONCLUSIONS: Sealant microleakage on questionably carious occlusal surfaces was statistically significantly higher than that of sound occlusal surfaces. Using a bonding agent or fluoridated FS did not influence microleakage significantly, either on sound or on questionable fissured surfaces.

Key words

fluoridated sealant questionable surfaces bonding agent microleakage 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Hiiri A, Nordblad A, Worthington H, Makela M. Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cohrane Database Syst Rev 2004 (3): CD 001830.Google Scholar
  2. Bader JD, Shugars DA. The evidence supporting alternative management strategies for early occlusal caries and suspected occlusal dentinal caries. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2006;6(1):91–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bravo M, Osorio E, Garcia-Anllo I, Llodra JC, Baca P. The influence of dft index on sealant success: a 48-month survival analysis. J Dent Res 1996;75(2):768–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carvalho JC, Ekstrand KR, Thylstrup A. Dental plaque and caries on occlusal surfaces of first permanent molars in relation to stage of eruption. J Dent Res 1989;68(5):773–79,.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duangthip D, Lussi A. Microleakage and penetration ability of resin sealant versus bonding system when applied following contamination. Pediatr Dent 2003;25:505–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Duangthip D, Lussi A. Effects of application techniques and fissure types on the in vitro performance of two fissure sealants. Am J Dent 2004;17(2):137–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Feigal RJ, Musherure P, Gillespie B, et al. Improved sealant retention with bonding agents: a clinical study of two-bottle and single-bottle systems. J Dent Res 2000;79:1850–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foreman FJ. Sealants prevalence and indication in a young military population. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125:182–86 [Abstract].PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamilton JC, Dennison JB, Stoffers KW, Welch KB. A clinical evaluation of air-abrasion treatment of questionable carious lesions. A 12-month report. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 132(6):762–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hatibovic-Kofman S, Wright GZ, Braverman I. Microleakage of sealants after conventional, bur, and air-abrasion preparation of pits and fissures. Pediatr Dent 1998;20(3):173–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Heifetz SB, Yaari A, Proskin HM. Retention of a fluoride-releasing sealant compared with its non-fluoride analogue: interim results of a clinical study after an average of eight months. J Clin Dent 2004;15:1–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hicks MJ, Flaitz CM. Caries-like lesion formation around fluoride-releasing sealant and glass ionomer. Am J Dent 1992;5:329–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. ICDAS: International Caries Detection and Assessment System http://www.dundee.ac.uk/dhsru/news/icdas.htm.173
  14. Irinoda Y, Matsumura Y, Kito H, et al. Effect of sealants viscosity on the penetration of resin into etched human enamel. Oper Dent 2000 Jul–Aug;25(4):274–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Leskinen K, Ekman A, Oulis C, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of fissure sealants in Finland, Sweden and Greece. Acta Odontol Scand 2008 Apr;66(2):65–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Locker D, Jokovic A, Kay EJ. Prevention. Part 8: The use of pit and fissure sealants in preventing caries in the permanent dentition of children. Br Dent J 2003;195:375–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lussi A. Validity of diagnostic and treatment decisions of fissure caries. Caries Res 1991; 25(4):296–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Makhija SK, Childers NK, Lauten J, et al. Evaluation of initial caries score and caries incidence in a public health sealant program: a retrospective study. Pediatr Dent 2006;Sep–Oct 28(5):420–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Marthaler TM. The caries prevention campaign in the Canton of Zurich during 1962–1974 along with a statistical result report from the first 8 years. SSO Schweiz Monatsschr Zahndeilkd 1975;85(11):1147–72.Google Scholar
  20. Morphis T, Toumba K. Retention of two fluoride pit and fissure sealants in comparison to a conventional sealant. Int J Paediat Dent 1998;8:203–08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oulis CJ, Berdousis E. Sealant retention and caries development after resealing on first permanent molars of low, moderate and high caries risk children. Eur. Archs. Paed. Dentistry 2009:10; pages 211–17Google Scholar
  22. Overdo R, Raadal M. Microleakage in fissures sealed with resin or glass ionomer cement. Scand J Dent Res 1990;98:66–69.Google Scholar
  23. Quinonez RB, Downs SM, Shugars D, Christensen J, Vann WF Jr. Assessing cost-effectiveness of sealant placement in children. J Public Health Dent 2005;65(2):82–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ripa LW. Sealants revised: an update on the effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants. Caries Res 1993;27(Suppl.):77–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Semecek JW, Diefenderfer KE, Ahlf RL, Ragain JC. Dental sealant longevity in a cohort of young U.S.A. naval personnel. J Am Dent Assoc 136:171–78 Feb. 2005.Google Scholar
  26. Stavridakis MM, Favez V, Campos EA, Krejci I. Marginal integrity of pit and fissure sealants. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the marginal adaptation before and after in vitro thermal and mechanical stressing. Oper Dent 2003;28(4):403–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Thylstrup A, Fegerskov, O. Tooth Surface Interactions and Preventive Dentistry In Rolla G, Songu T, Emderg G., Workshop on Tooth Surface Interactions and Preventive Dentistry (1980 Oslo, Norway) Edit.1981, IRL Press (London, Washington, D.C)Google Scholar
  28. Tickle M, Yeung CA, Milsom KM, Blinkhorm AS. The prescription and outcomes of fissure sealants applied to a group of high caries risk children by general dental practitioners working in the North West England. Community Dent Health 2007; 24(3):135–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. G. Michalaki
    • 1
  • C. J. Oulis
    • 1
    Email author
  • P. Lagouvardos
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Paediatric Dentistry, School of DentistryUniversity of AthensHalandri, AthensGreece
  2. 2.Dept. of Operative Dentistry, School of DentistryUniversity of AthensGreece

Personalised recommendations