Effect of Different Protocols on The Microleakage of A Fissure Sealant Applied During Saliva Contamination

H. Güngör, Hayrunnisa Şimşek, Majd M. Alsaleh
{"title":"Effect of Different Protocols on The Microleakage of A Fissure Sealant Applied During Saliva Contamination","authors":"H. Güngör, Hayrunnisa Şimşek, Majd M. Alsaleh","doi":"10.54995/asc.2.2.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Statement of the problem: Saliva contamination during sealant application\nhas negative consequences that affects long-term success including retention\nand caries progression.\nObjective: The effect of different protocols to minimize the effect of saliva\ncontamination on the microleakage of a resin based fissure sealant material\n(3M Clinpro™ Sealant) was investigated.\nMaterials & Methods: Extracted human third molars (n=160) were used:\nGroup A. Etch-and-rinse adhesive (Prime & Bond One Select); Group B. Selfetching\nadhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). These comprised eight paired subgroups\nwhere enameloplasty was done (or not), saliva contamination occurred before\n(or after) the polymerization of the bonding agent and the entire procedure was\nrepeated (or not) following saliva contamination before the sealant application.\nFollowing thermocycling, the samples were immersed in basic fuchsin, sectioned,\nand dye penetration was quantitatively assessed with ImageJ. The data were\nstatistically analyzed (α=0.05).\nResults: Significantly less microleakage was observed in Group A\n(P=0.000). Intergroup differences with respect to the effect of adhesive type,\nenameloplasty, saliva contamination occurred after the polymerization of the\nbonding agent and repeating the entire procedure following saliva contamination\nwere significant (p<0.05, each). Enameloplasty reduced microleakage in subgroups\nof A and B (P=0.002 and P=0.014, respectively). Saliva contamination\nafter the polymerization of the bonding agent resulted in less microleakage in\nsubgroups of A and B (P=0.01 and P=0.002, respectively). Less microleakage\nwas observed in subgroups of A and B where the entire procedure was repeated\nfollowing saliva contamination (P=0.000, both).\nConclusions: The use of etch-and-rinse adhesive, enameloplasty, saliva\ncontamination occurring after the polymerization of the bonding agent and repeating\nthe entire procedure reduced microleakage of the fissure sealant applied\nduring saliva contamination.","PeriodicalId":355146,"journal":{"name":"Kapadokya Üniversitesi","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kapadokya Üniversitesi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54995/asc.2.2.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Statement of the problem: Saliva contamination during sealant application has negative consequences that affects long-term success including retention and caries progression. Objective: The effect of different protocols to minimize the effect of saliva contamination on the microleakage of a resin based fissure sealant material (3M Clinpro™ Sealant) was investigated. Materials & Methods: Extracted human third molars (n=160) were used: Group A. Etch-and-rinse adhesive (Prime & Bond One Select); Group B. Selfetching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). These comprised eight paired subgroups where enameloplasty was done (or not), saliva contamination occurred before (or after) the polymerization of the bonding agent and the entire procedure was repeated (or not) following saliva contamination before the sealant application. Following thermocycling, the samples were immersed in basic fuchsin, sectioned, and dye penetration was quantitatively assessed with ImageJ. The data were statistically analyzed (α=0.05). Results: Significantly less microleakage was observed in Group A (P=0.000). Intergroup differences with respect to the effect of adhesive type, enameloplasty, saliva contamination occurred after the polymerization of the bonding agent and repeating the entire procedure following saliva contamination were significant (p<0.05, each). Enameloplasty reduced microleakage in subgroups of A and B (P=0.002 and P=0.014, respectively). Saliva contamination after the polymerization of the bonding agent resulted in less microleakage in subgroups of A and B (P=0.01 and P=0.002, respectively). Less microleakage was observed in subgroups of A and B where the entire procedure was repeated following saliva contamination (P=0.000, both). Conclusions: The use of etch-and-rinse adhesive, enameloplasty, saliva contamination occurring after the polymerization of the bonding agent and repeating the entire procedure reduced microleakage of the fissure sealant applied during saliva contamination.
不同方案对唾液污染过程中裂隙密封胶微泄漏的影响
问题陈述:在使用密封剂期间唾液污染会影响长期成功,包括保留和龋齿进展。目的:研究不同方案对减少唾液污染对树脂基裂缝密封材料(3M Clinpro™sealant)微泄漏的影响。材料与方法:使用提取的人第三磨牙(160颗):a组蚀刻冲洗胶粘剂(Prime & Bond One Select);b组自吸胶(Clearfil SE Bond)。这包括八个配对的亚组,其中牙釉质成形术完成(或不完成),唾液污染发生在粘合剂聚合之前(或之后),整个过程在唾液污染之后重复(或不重复)。热循环后,样品浸泡在碱性品红中,切片,并用ImageJ定量评估染料渗透。对数据进行统计学分析(α=0.05)。结果:A组微渗漏明显减少(P=0.000)。在胶粘剂类型、牙釉质成形术、黏合剂聚合后发生的唾液污染以及唾液污染后重复整个过程的影响方面,组间差异具有显著性(p<0.05)。A亚组和B亚组牙釉质成形术减少了微渗漏(P=0.002和P=0.014)。聚合后唾液污染导致A亚组和B亚组微渗漏较少(P=0.01和P=0.002)。在唾液污染后重复整个过程的A和B亚组中观察到较少的微泄漏(P均=0.000)。结论:使用蚀刻冲洗胶粘剂、牙釉质成形术、黏合剂聚合后的唾液污染以及重复整个过程可以减少唾液污染过程中应用的裂缝密封剂的微泄漏。
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