Evaluation of glass carbomer sealant and a moisture tolerant resin sealant – A comparative study

Priya Subramaniam , Shurti Jayasurya , K.L. Girish Babu
{"title":"Evaluation of glass carbomer sealant and a moisture tolerant resin sealant – A comparative study","authors":"Priya Subramaniam ,&nbsp;Shurti Jayasurya ,&nbsp;K.L. Girish Babu","doi":"10.1016/j.ijdsr.2015.05.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p><span>Fissure sealants have been widely used for more than four decades in preventing dental caries. Advances in technology have led to the development of moisture tolerant sealants. They are available as resin based and </span>glass ionomer based. There is a paucity of studies on the effectiveness of moisture tolerant sealant materials in clinical conditions. AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the retention and caries incidence with use of the two newly introduced moisture tolerant pit and fissure sealants.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>One hundred and eight children formed the study group. The glass carbomer<span> sealant and Embrace WetBond sealant were two moisture tolerant sealants used. The sealant was applied on the occlusal surface of the teeth following the manufacturer's instructions. Children were recalled for assessment of sealant retention and the teeth were examined for dental caries on the occlusal surface using mouth mirror and blunt probe following 1, 3,6,12,18 and 24 months. Sealants were assessed according to a modified version of the CCC sealants evaluation system described by Deery et al. RESULTS: At 18 and 24 months, both GC and EBW showed similar pattern of sealant retention At 24 months, enamel caries was observed in 3 teeth sealed with EBW as compared to only 1 tooth sealed with GC.</span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There was no significant difference between the retention of glass carbomer sealant and Embrace WetBond sealant, at the end of 2 years. There was no significant difference in the caries incidence between both these sealants.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100695,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Dental Science and Research","volume":"2 2","pages":"Pages 41-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ijdsr.2015.05.001","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Dental Science and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213997415000270","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Introduction

Fissure sealants have been widely used for more than four decades in preventing dental caries. Advances in technology have led to the development of moisture tolerant sealants. They are available as resin based and glass ionomer based. There is a paucity of studies on the effectiveness of moisture tolerant sealant materials in clinical conditions. AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the retention and caries incidence with use of the two newly introduced moisture tolerant pit and fissure sealants.

Materials and methods

One hundred and eight children formed the study group. The glass carbomer sealant and Embrace WetBond sealant were two moisture tolerant sealants used. The sealant was applied on the occlusal surface of the teeth following the manufacturer's instructions. Children were recalled for assessment of sealant retention and the teeth were examined for dental caries on the occlusal surface using mouth mirror and blunt probe following 1, 3,6,12,18 and 24 months. Sealants were assessed according to a modified version of the CCC sealants evaluation system described by Deery et al. RESULTS: At 18 and 24 months, both GC and EBW showed similar pattern of sealant retention At 24 months, enamel caries was observed in 3 teeth sealed with EBW as compared to only 1 tooth sealed with GC.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference between the retention of glass carbomer sealant and Embrace WetBond sealant, at the end of 2 years. There was no significant difference in the caries incidence between both these sealants.

玻璃卡波姆密封胶与耐湿树脂密封胶的评价-比较研究
牙缝密封剂在预防龋齿方面已被广泛应用了四十多年。技术的进步导致了耐湿密封胶的发展。它们有树脂基和玻璃离子基两种。关于耐湿密封材料在临床条件下的有效性的研究很少。目的:本研究的目的是评估和比较使用两种新引入的耐湿坑缝密封剂的固位和龋发病率。材料与方法108名儿童组成了研究小组。玻璃卡波姆密封胶和Embrace WetBond密封胶是使用的两种耐湿密封胶。按照制造商的说明在牙齿咬合表面涂上密封胶。分别于1、3、6、12、18、24个月时召回患儿,评估密封剂保留情况,并使用口腔镜和钝探头检查牙合面是否有龋齿。根据Deery等人描述的CCC密封剂评价体系的修改版本对密封剂进行评估。结果:在18个月和24个月时,GC和EBW的牙釉质保留情况相似。24个月时,EBW封闭的牙釉质龋出现3个,而GC封闭的牙釉质龋只有1个。结论2年后,玻璃卡波姆密封胶与Embrace WetBond密封胶的固位差异无统计学意义。两种密封剂的龋病发生率无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信