Singla Anshu, Garg Shalini, Jindal Sanjeev Kumar, Suma Sogi H P, Sharma Deepak
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Rayat Bahra Dental College, Mohali, Chandigarh, India.
Indian J Dent Res. 2011 Mar-Apr;22(2):205-9. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.84286.
This study compared the microleakage of light cure glass ionomer and flowable compomer as pit and fissure sealant, with and without tooth preparation.
One hundred premolars that were extracted for orthodontic purpose were used. After adequate storage and surface debridement, the teeth were randomly divided into four groups. In Group I and III, the occlusal surfaces were left intact, while in Group II and Group IV, tooth surfaces were prepared. Teeth in Group I and Group II were sealed with Light cure glass ionomer, whereas flowable compomer was used to seal teeth in Group III and IV. The sealed teeth were then immersed in dye. Subsequently, buccolingual sections were made and each section was examined under stereomicroscope for microleakage followed by scoring.
In group I, microleakage score ranged from 2 to 4 with mean of 3.64 (±0.757), while in group II the range was observed to be 1-4 with mean of 2.88 (±1.236). Group III recorded a range of 0-4 with the mean of 2.20 (±1.443) while 0-2 and 0.60 (±0.707) being the range and mean observed, respectively, for group IV.
Flowable compomer placed after tooth preparation showed better penetration and less marginal leakage than the light cure glass ionomer.
本研究比较了光固化玻璃离子水门汀和可流动复合树脂作为窝沟封闭剂在有无牙齿预备情况下的微渗漏情况。
使用100颗因正畸拔除的前磨牙。经过充分储存和表面清创后,将牙齿随机分为四组。第一组和第三组,咬合面保持完整,而第二组和第四组对牙齿表面进行预备。第一组和第二组的牙齿用光固化玻璃离子水门汀封闭,而第三组和第四组的牙齿用可流动复合树脂封闭。然后将封闭后的牙齿浸泡在染料中。随后制作颊舌向切片,在体视显微镜下检查每个切片的微渗漏情况并进行评分。
第一组的微渗漏评分为2至4分,平均为3.64(±0.757),而第二组观察到范围为1至4分,平均为2.88(±1.236)。第三组记录的范围为0至4分,平均为2.20(±1.443),而第四组观察到的范围和平均分别为0至2分和0.60(±0.707)。
牙齿预备后使用可流动复合树脂比光固化玻璃离子水门汀具有更好的渗透和更少的边缘渗漏。