Assessment of two curing systems in a self-etching primer/adhesive sealant: A preliminary study for a clinical trial
Aim: This was to assess the clinical performance of two different polymerization regimens of a non-rinse conditioning self/etching adhesive/sealant system (Adper Prompt-L-Pop®, 3M ESPE) placed in recently erupted first permanent molars in two paediatric dental practices. Methods: A total of 40 healthy 5 to 8 year old patients (20 from each practice), presenting at least two caries-free recently erupted first permanent molars, participated in this preliminary test. A total of 128 molars were fissure sealed (FS) and cured with two different curing regimens. Group1 (64 teeth) used Adper L-Pop + Clinpro as a one-step cure regimen. Group 2 (64 teeth) used Adper L-Pop + Clinpro with a two-step cure regimen using cotton-roll isolation. Sealants were evaluated 6 to 12 months after placement. Results: No differences were found in the ratings between the two polymerization regimens. In Group 1, 28 molars recorded FS fully retained rated A, 29 were rated B (partially missing) and 7 sealants were completely lost (C). In Group 2, 30 molars were rated A, another 30 scored B and 4 molars were totally lost (C). Conclusion: The poor performance of both FS polymerization regimens of the non-rinse conditioning self/etching adhesive/sealant system (Adper Prompt-L-Pop®, 3M ESPE) placed in recently erupted first permanent molars in the present test does not justify its use in young children.
Key wordsfissure sealants self-etching retention
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Reference Manual 2001–2002: Clinical Guidelines on Pediatric Restorative Dentistry, p, 56–57.Google Scholar
- American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Reference Manual 2006–2007: Clinical Guidelines on Pediatric Restorative Dentistry, p, 123.Google Scholar
- Barrie AM, Stephan KW, Kay EJ: Fissure sealant retention: a comparison of three sealant types under field conditions. Com Dental Health 1990. 7:273–277Google Scholar
- Hiiri A, Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Nordblad A, Makela M: Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006 Oct 18; (4):CD003067Google Scholar
- Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealants. In: Clinical Applications of the Acid Etch Technique. Chicago, Ill: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc; 1978:19–42Google Scholar
- Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002. 24:398–414Google Scholar
- Tay F R, Wei S HY, Pashley D H,Carvalho RM: Ultrastructure of resin-enamel bonds in unground enamel-occlusal fissures IADR 2003, Goteborg, Sweden, #0718Google Scholar
- Wendt LK, Koch G, Birkhed D. On the retention and effectiveness of fissure sealant in permanent molars after 15–20 years: A cohort study. Community DentOral Epidemiol 2001 29:302–307.2001Google Scholar