Barroso Juliana Machado, Torres Carolina Paes, Lessa Fernanda Campos Rosetti, Pécora Jesus Djalma, Palma-Dibb Regina Guenka, Borsatto Maria Cristina
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Brazil.
J Dent Child (Chic). 2005 Sep-Dec;72(3):95-9.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the shear bond strength of 2 resin-based pit-and-fissure sealants--Clinpro and Fluroshield--to saliva-contaminated and noncontaminated enamel.
Forty buccal halves of permanent molar crowns were individually embedded in polyester resin and ground with wet silicone carbide papers to obtain flat enamel surfaces. The specimens were randomly assigned to 2 groups: (A) without contamination; and (B) contaminated with 0.01 ml of fresh human saliva. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (N=10), according to the sealant applied: (1) Clinpro; and (2) Fluroshield. Shear bond strength was tested at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure mode was assessed.
Means (MPa) were: (1) A1=7.66 +/- 3.12; A2=12.39 +/- 4.34; (2) B1=5.05 +/- 1.44; B2=10.44 +/- 2.35. Data were submitted to analysis of variance and Scheffé's statistical test (P<.05). There was a statistically significant difference (P<.05) between both the sealants and the experimental conditions analyzed. Fluroshield provided higher bond strength and was different from Clinpro (P<.05) in the absence of contamination. Within the saliva-contaminated group, however, no statistically significant difference (P>.05) was observed between the tested materials.
It may be concluded that, under dry conditions, the filled pit-and-fissure sealant (Fluroshield) yielded better bonding performance. Salivary contamination undermined the adhesion of both materials to enamel and resulted in lower bond strengths.
本研究旨在调查两种树脂基窝沟封闭剂——Clinpro和Fluroshield——对受唾液污染和未受污染牙釉质的剪切粘结强度。
将40个恒牙牙冠的颊面分别嵌入聚酯树脂中,并用湿碳化硅砂纸研磨以获得平整的牙釉质表面。将标本随机分为两组:(A)未受污染组;(B)用0.01 ml新鲜人唾液污染组。根据所应用的封闭剂,每组再分为两个亚组(N = 10):(1)Clinpro组;(2)Fluroshield组。以0.5 mm/min的十字头速度测试剪切粘结强度。评估失败模式。
平均值(MPa)为:(1)A1 = 7.66 ± 3.12;A2 = 12.39 ± 4.34;(2)B1 = 5.05 ± 1.44;B2 = 10.44 ± 2.35。数据进行方差分析和Scheffé统计检验(P <.05)。在所分析的封闭剂和实验条件之间存在统计学显著差异(P <.05)。在未受污染的情况下,Fluroshield提供了更高的粘结强度,且与Clinpro不同(P <.05)。然而,在受唾液污染的组中,所测试的材料之间未观察到统计学显著差异(P >.05)。
可以得出结论,在干燥条件下,填充型窝沟封闭剂(Fluroshield)具有更好的粘结性能。唾液污染会削弱两种材料与牙釉质的附着力,并导致较低的粘结强度。