Şimşek Hayrunnisa, Yazıcı A Rüya, Güngör H Cem
J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2020 Aug 1;44(4):240-248. doi: 10.17796/1053-4625-44.4.5.
To evaluate the effect of different enamel conditioning protocols and their re-application on the microleakage of fissure sealants placed following saliva contamination.
The study included 156 human third molars in 16 subgroups (2×4×2) under two main groups (sealant type): Group A- hydrophobic resin sealant, 3M Clinpro™ Sealant; Group B- hydrophilic resin sealant, Ultraseal XT Hydro. Each group was then divided according to the type of surface conditioning; 1- Er,Cr:YSSG laser etching, 2- acid-etching, 3- acid-etching+etch-and-rinse adhesive (Prime&Bond® One Select) and 4- self-etching adhesive (Clearfil™ SE Bond). After contaminating the conditioned occlusal enamel surfaces with artificial saliva, fissure sealant was applied in half of the specimens (a), whereas in the other half, (b) the respective surface conditioning was repeated and then fissure sealant was placed. Following thermocycling, the samples were immersed in basic fuchsin, sectioned, and dye penetration was quantitatively assessed with ImageJ. Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used for statistical analyses (p<0.05).
The least microleakage was observed in A3b and A3a, whereas B4b and B4a were the subgroups with the highest microleakage. Following saliva contamination, when surface conditioning was not re-applied, the effects of fissure sealant types and surface conditioning were significant (p=0.005 and p<0.001, respectively). However, their interaction was insignificant (p=0.173). When surface conditioning was re-applied after saliva contamination, the effects of type of fissure sealant and surface conditioning (p=0.000, for both) and their interaction (p=0.004) were significant.
3M Clinpro™ Sealant was superior to Ultraseal XT Hydro. Re-application of Er,Cr:YSSG laser and the self-etching adhesive did not affect the microleakage of both fissure sealants. Without re-application, acid-etching+etch-and-rinse adhesive was superior to acid-etching only. However, both of them were similarly successful when they were re-applied following saliva contamination.
评估不同牙釉质预处理方案及其再次应用对唾液污染后窝沟封闭剂微渗漏的影响。
该研究纳入156颗人类第三磨牙,分为16个亚组(2×4×2),分属两个主要组别(封闭剂类型):A组——疏水性树脂封闭剂,3M Clinpro™封闭剂;B组——亲水性树脂封闭剂,Ultraseal XT Hydro。然后根据表面预处理类型对每组进行划分;1 - Er,Cr:YSSG激光蚀刻,2 - 酸蚀,3 - 酸蚀+酸蚀冲洗粘结剂(Prime&Bond® One Select)和4 - 自酸蚀粘结剂(Clearfil™ SE Bond)。在用人工唾液污染预处理后的咬合面牙釉质表面后,在一半的标本中应用窝沟封闭剂(a),而在另一半标本中(b),重复相应的表面预处理,然后放置窝沟封闭剂。经过热循环后,将样本浸入碱性品红中,切片,并用ImageJ定量评估染料渗透情况。采用双向方差分析和Bonferroni事后检验进行统计分析(p<0.05)。
在A3b和A3a中观察到的微渗漏最少,而B4b和B4a是微渗漏最高的亚组。唾液污染后,当不再重新进行表面预处理时,窝沟封闭剂类型和表面预处理的影响显著(分别为p = 0.005和p<0.001)。然而,它们的交互作用不显著(p = 0.173)。当唾液污染后重新进行表面预处理时,窝沟封闭剂类型和表面预处理的影响(两者均为p = 0.000)及其交互作用(p = 0.004)均显著。
3M Clinpro™封闭剂优于Ultraseal XT Hydro。再次应用Er,Cr:YSSG激光和自酸蚀粘结剂不影响两种窝沟封闭剂的微渗漏。不重新应用时,酸蚀+酸蚀冲洗粘结剂优于仅酸蚀。然而,唾液污染后重新应用时,两者同样成功。