Rirattanapong Praphasri, Vongsavan Kadkao, Surarit Rudee
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2011 Mar;42(2):463-7.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the shear bond strength of different types of sealant to non-contaminated and saliva-contaminated enamel. The buccal surfaces of 60 sound permanent third molars were individually embedded in self-curing acrylic resin and wet ground with 1,000-grit silicone carbide paper to obtain a flat enamel surface. The specimens were randomly assigned to one of three groups: 1) non-fluoride-releasing resin sealant (Concise), 2) fluoride-releasing resin sealant (Clinpro), 3) glass-ionomer sealant (Fuji VII). Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (n = 10): non-contaminated and saliva contaminated with 0.02 ml of fresh human saliva for 20 seconds and then blowed dried prior to sealant placement. All samples were thermocycled 2,000 cycles. The specimens were tested using an Instron running at a crosshead speed of 0.05 mm/min. Stereomicroscope examinations were carried out to evaluate failure sites of the sealants. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and the Turkey test at a siginificance level of p < 0.05. Comparison of the different types of sealant revealed the shear bond strength of the glass-ionomer sealant was the same for the non-contaminated and saliva-contaminated subgroups. The shear bond strength was lower in both the fluoride and non-fluoride releasing resin-based sealant groups contaminated with saliva than in the fluoride and non-fluoride releasing resin-based sealant groups not contaminated with saliva. Comparison of the different types of sealant also revealed the shear bond strength of the glass-ionomer sealant had a significantly lower shear bond strength than the fluoride and non-fluoride releasing resin-based sealant groups for both the non-contaminated and saliva-contaminated subgroups. The fluoride and non-fluoride releasing resin-based sealant groups were not significantly different from each other. The modes of failure were mostly mixed with the glass-ionomer sealant in both the non-contaminated and saliva-contaminated subgroups of this sealant. The resin-based sealant groups (both fluoride and non-fluoride releasing) had cohesive/mixed failure in the non-contaminated and adhesive/mixed failure in the saliva-contaminated subgroups. In conclusion, saliva-contamiantion did not affect the shear bond strength of glass-ionomer sealant but the glass-ionomer sealant had the lowest shear bond strength.
本体外研究的目的是比较不同类型的封闭剂与未受污染及受唾液污染的牙釉质之间的剪切粘结强度。60颗完好的恒牙第三磨牙的颊面分别嵌入自凝丙烯酸树脂中，并用1000目碳化硅砂纸湿磨，以获得平整的牙釉质表面。将标本随机分为三组之一：1）非氟释放树脂封闭剂（Concise），2）氟释放树脂封闭剂（Clinpro），3）玻璃离子封闭剂（Fuji VII）。每组再分为2个亚组（n = 10）：未受污染组和用0.02 ml新鲜人唾液污染20秒，然后在放置封闭剂之前吹干。所有样本进行2000次热循环。使用Instron以0.05 mm/min的十字头速度对标本进行测试。进行体视显微镜检查以评估封闭剂的失败部位。数据采用单因素方差分析和Turkey检验进行分析，显著性水平为p < 0.05。不同类型封闭剂的比较显示，未受污染亚组和受唾液污染亚组中玻璃离子封闭剂的剪切粘结强度相同。受唾液污染的氟释放和非氟释放树脂基封闭剂组的剪切粘结强度均低于未受唾液污染的氟释放和非氟释放树脂基封闭剂组。不同类型封闭剂的比较还显示，对于未受污染亚组和受唾液污染亚组，玻璃离子封闭剂的剪切粘结强度均显著低于氟释放和非氟释放树脂基封闭剂组。氟释放和非氟释放树脂基封闭剂组之间无显著差异。在该封闭剂未受污染亚组和受唾液污染亚组中，失败模式大多为玻璃离子封闭剂的混合模式。树脂基封闭剂组（氟释放和非氟释放）在未受污染亚组中为内聚/混合失败，在受唾液污染亚组中为粘结/混合失败。总之，唾液污染不影响玻璃离子封闭剂的剪切粘结强度，但玻璃离子封闭剂的剪切粘结强度最低。
