Srinivasan V, Deery C, Nugent Z
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Edinburgh Dental Institute, Edinburgh, UK.
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2005 Jan;15(1):51-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00609.x.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether differences in surface treatment prior to repair influenced the seal of a resin fissure sealant placed on the occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth.
In-vitro study.
One hundred and twenty-eight extracted human first and second molars were randomly allocated to one of four groups of 32 teeth each. A light cured, unfilled, opaque resin fissure sealant (Delton) was placed on their occlusal surface following cleaning by prophylaxis and acid etching. Following storage in artificial saliva (Saliva Orthana) for a week, duplication of sealant failure was carried out. The teeth were then subjected to one of four different surface treatments: Group 1: with a slow-speed prophylaxis brush followed by acid etching (control method); Group 2: a slow-speed bur and acid etching; Group 3: air abrasion and acid etching; and Group 4: acid etching and application of a bonding agent. Following a further week of storage in artificial saliva two layers of impermeable varnish were applied to the nonocclusal surfaces of the teeth; their apices were then sealed with wax and the teeth were immersed in 1% methylene blue for 48 h. The teeth were then sectioned (ISOMET 1000) to achieve three cuts resulting in a maximum of four blocks, i.e. six surfaces per tooth. A total of 715 sections from 126 teeth were scored for microleakage on the intact and repaired side of the fissure sealant.
Statistical analysis did not demonstrate any one single method of repair to be superior to the control method for reapplication of the sealant.
All four techniques compared in this study seem to be acceptable for replacing or repairing lost or fractured fissure sealants. As prophylaxis with a brush rotating at slow speed followed by acid etching, which probably represents current practice, is also the simplest technique that can be practised on children, it is therefore recommended.
本研究的目的是调查修复前表面处理的差异是否会影响放置在恒牙磨牙咬合面上的树脂窝沟封闭剂的密封性。
体外研究。
128颗拔除的人类第一和第二磨牙被随机分为四组,每组32颗牙齿。在预防性清洁和酸蚀后,将一种光固化、无填料、不透明的树脂窝沟封闭剂(Delton)放置在其咬合面上。在人工唾液(Orthana唾液)中储存一周后,进行窝沟封闭剂失败的复制。然后对牙齿进行四种不同表面处理之一:第1组:用低速预防性牙刷然后酸蚀(对照方法);第2组:低速车针和酸蚀;第3组:空气喷砂和酸蚀;第4组:酸蚀并应用粘结剂。在人工唾液中再储存一周后,在牙齿的非咬合面上涂两层不透性清漆;然后用蜡密封其根尖,将牙齿浸入1%亚甲蓝中48小时。然后将牙齿切片(ISOMET 1000)以获得三个切口,最多产生四个块,即每颗牙齿六个表面。对来自126颗牙齿的总共715个切片在窝沟封闭剂的完整侧和修复侧进行微渗漏评分。
统计分析未表明任何一种单一的修复方法在重新应用窝沟封闭剂方面优于对照方法。
本研究中比较的所有四种技术似乎都可接受用于替换或修复丢失或断裂的窝沟封闭剂。由于低速旋转牙刷预防性清洁然后酸蚀可能代表当前的做法,也是可以在儿童身上实施的最简单技术,因此推荐使用。