Garg Nikita, Indushekar K R, Saraf Bhavna Gupta, Sheoran Neha, Sardana Divesh
Dept. of Paediatric Dentistry, Sudha Rustagi Dental College, Faridabad, India.
J Dent (Shiraz). 2018 Jun;19(2):92-99.
Pit and fissure sealant placement is considered as an effective modality for prevention of caries on occlusal surfaces. Penetration, retention and lateral wall adaptation are the key factors in success of pit and fissure sealant restorations.
The purpose of this paper was to compare penetration ability and lateral wall adaptation of three commercially available pit and fissure sealants.
The present study was done on 45 extracted sound human molars to evaluate the fissure pattern and assess the penetration ability of three commercially available sealants [Delton® FS Sealant (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), Clinpro™ Sealant (3M™ ESPE™, Minnesota, USA) and GC Fuji VII Glass Ionomer Cement (GC Asia Dental Pte Ltd, Singapore)] on molars divided into 3 equal groups of 15 each, with further sectioning of each sample into 2 parts giving 30 samples per group. Following thermocycling and embedding of teeth in clear auto-polymerizing acrylic resin, sections were evaluated for fissure morphology, sealant penetration, unfilled space, lateral wall adaptation, and for presence of voids.
Penetrability of all the sealants studied was found to be significantly more in U-type fissure pattern (93.89%) followed by V-type (78.62%), IK-type (74.34%) and then in I-type (65.91). The depth of penetration of the GC Fuji VII Glass Ionomer sealant (85.82%) was found to be superior followed by unfilled resin sealant (Clinpro™ Sealant- 78.26%) and then by filled resin sealant (Delton® FS Sealant- 74.89%).
U- type fissure pattern was more common than other fissure patterns and showed significantly higher penetrability of different type of sealants evaluated in the present study. GIC based sealant, due to significantly higher penetration depth than unfilled and filled sealants used in the present study, can be preferred over filled or unfilled resin sealants.
窝沟封闭剂的放置被认为是预防咬合面龋齿的一种有效方法。渗透、保留和侧壁适应性是窝沟封闭修复成功的关键因素。
本文的目的是比较三种市售窝沟封闭剂的渗透能力和侧壁适应性。
本研究对45颗拔除的健康人磨牙进行,以评估裂隙形态,并评估三种市售封闭剂[Delton® FS封闭剂(德国康斯坦茨登士柏德瑞公司)、Clinpro™ 封闭剂(美国明尼苏达州3M™ ESPE™ 公司)和GC Fuji VII玻璃离子水门汀(新加坡GC亚洲牙科私人有限公司)]在磨牙上的渗透能力。将磨牙分为3组,每组15颗,每组再将每个样本切成2部分,每组得到30个样本。在进行热循环并将牙齿嵌入透明自凝丙烯酸树脂后,对切片进行裂隙形态、封闭剂渗透、未填充空间、侧壁适应性和空隙存在情况的评估。
在所研究的所有封闭剂中,U型裂隙模式下的渗透性显著更高(93.89%),其次是V型(78.62%)、IK型(74.34%),然后是I型(65.91%)。发现GC Fuji VII玻璃离子封闭剂的渗透深度(85.82%)最高,其次是未填充树脂封闭剂(Clinpro™ 封闭剂-78.26%),然后是填充树脂封闭剂(Delton® FS封闭剂-74.89%)。
U型裂隙模式比其他裂隙模式更常见,并且在所研究的不同类型封闭剂中显示出显著更高的渗透性。基于玻璃离子水门汀的封闭剂,由于其渗透深度明显高于本研究中使用的未填充和填充封闭剂,可能比填充或未填充树脂封闭剂更受青睐。