Michalaki M G, Oulis C J, Lagouvardos P
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Athens, 22 Kodrou str. 15231 Halandri, Athens, Greece.
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2010 Feb;11(1):26-31. doi: 10.1007/BF03262706.
This was to evaluate the microleakage of 3 different sealants, applied on sound and questionably carious occlusal surfaces with and without a bonding agent.
A total of 120 human molars were selected, photographed with a digital video microscope, and assigned by 3 independent examiners, according to the criteria of ICDAS II, in 2 groups of 60 teeth each. Group A: teeth with deep, clear, sound occlusal surfaces (ICDAS II, code 0). Group B: teeth with questionable occlusal surfaces, having deep, stained pits and fissures with probable incipient, but non-cavitated carious lesions (ICDAS II, codes 1 and 2). Each group was divided into 2 subgroups of 30 teeth each (bonding or no bonding) and then into 3 subgroups of 10 teeth each according to the type of sealant used: one conventional (Conseal) and 2 fluoridated (Conseal F and Teethmate F). After the application of the bonding agent and the sealant to the appropriate teeth, all specimens were subjected to thermal cycling and immersed in a 10% methylene blue dye solution for 4 hours. Average and summed microleakage for each sample were estimated from dye penetration scores on 3 mesiodistal sections of the tooth across the sealed occlusal surface. Non-parametric Friedman's 2-way ANOVA by ranks and Conover-Inman pair wise comparisons were used for differences at the 0.05 level of significance.
According to Friedman's 2-way ANOVA by ranks analysis, although there were no significant differences between the different sealants (chi(2) = 0.048, df = 2, P = .976), there were significant differences between the sound and questionably carious occlusal surfaces (chi(2) = 24, df = 3, P = .000). Conover- Inman pair wise comparisons showed no differences between the groups using and not using bonding agents, on sound (SNB-SWB, P = .4561) or questionable occlusal surfaces (QNB-QWB, P = .0842).
Sealant microleakage on questionably carious occlusal surfaces was statistically significantly higher than that of sound occlusal surfaces. Using a bonding agent or fluoridated FS did not influence microleakage significantly, either on sound or on questionable fissured surfaces.
本研究旨在评估三种不同窝沟封闭剂在有或无粘结剂的情况下，应用于健康及可疑龋合面时的微渗漏情况。
共选取120颗人磨牙，用数码视频显微镜拍照，由3名独立检查者根据国际龋病检测和评估系统（ICDAS II）标准将其分为两组，每组60颗牙。A组：合面深、清晰、健康（ICDAS II代码0）的牙齿。B组：合面可疑，有深的、染色的窝沟，可能有早期但未形成龋洞的龋损（ICDAS II代码1和2）。每组再分为两个亚组，每组30颗牙（使用粘结剂或不使用粘结剂），然后根据所用窝沟封闭剂的类型分为三个亚组，每组10颗牙：一种传统型（Conseal）和两种含氟型（Conseal F和Teethmate F）。在将粘结剂和窝沟封闭剂应用于相应牙齿后，所有标本进行热循环处理，并浸入10%亚甲蓝染料溶液中4小时。根据牙齿封闭合面的三个近远中截面的染料渗透评分，估计每个样本的平均微渗漏和总微渗漏。采用非参数Friedman双向秩方差分析及Conover-Inman两两比较，检验显著性水平为0.05时的差异。
根据Friedman双向秩方差分析，虽然不同窝沟封闭剂之间无显著差异（χ² = 0.048，自由度 = 2，P = 0.976），但健康合面与可疑龋合面之间存在显著差异（χ² = 24，自由度 = 3，P = 0.000）。Conover-Inman两两比较显示，在健康合面（SNB - SWB，P = 0.4561）或可疑龋合面（QNB - QWB，P = 0.0842）上，使用和不使用粘结剂的组间无差异。
可疑龋合面的窝沟封闭剂微渗漏在统计学上显著高于健康合面。使用粘结剂或含氟窝沟封闭剂对健康或可疑窝沟面的微渗漏均无显著影响。
