Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Institute for Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 7;11(1):7655. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-87288-7.
Regarding their resistance five sealants were tested in vitro after experiencing mechanical, thermal and chemical stress. Included for testing were two fluoride varnishes: Fluor Protector [FP] (Ivoclar Vivadent) and Protecto CaF2 Nano One-Step Seal [PN] (BonaDent) and three fluoride-composite filled sealants (with acid etch technique): Clinpro XT Varnish [CP] (3 M Espe), Pro Seal [PS] & Light Bond [LB] (Reliance Orthodontic Products) and a positive control group [CG] Tetric EvoFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent). The sealants were applied on 180 bovine teeth (n = 10/ sealer) in a standardized manner after bracket bonding. Mechanical pressure and its effect by simulating different time points and standardized electric cleaning protocol was tested first. Followed by thermal burden due to varying thermal stress and thirdly change in pH stress imitating chemical exposure were examined separately. A digital microscope and a grid incisal and apical to the brackets (n = 32 fields) was used to standardize the optical analysis. Material loss due to mechanical stress compared to CG (score 0.00) was CP (1.2%), FP (21.5%), LB (22.2%) and PN (81.1%). No significant difference to CG presented PS. Material loss due to thermal stress was CP (0.5%), PS (2%), FP (2.6%), LB (3.1%) and PN (39.9%). Material loss due to chemical stress was FP (1.8%), PS (2.1%), LB (5.5%) and PN (39.6%). No significant difference to CG presented CP. Only PS and CP had optically provable, good resiliance to mechanical, thermal and chemical stress. Significantly poorer outcomes in particular showed PN.
关于它们的抗腐蚀性，五种密封剂在经历了机械、热和化学压力后在体外进行了测试。测试包括两种氟化物清漆：Fluor Protector [FP]（义获嘉伟瓦登特）和 Protecto CaF2 Nano One-Step Seal [PN]（博纳登特）以及三种含氟复合填充密封剂（具有酸蚀技术）：Clinpro XT Varnish [CP]（3M ESPE）、Pro Seal [PS] & Light Bond [LB]（登士柏正畸产品）和阳性对照组 [CG] Tetric EvoFlow（义获嘉伟瓦登特）。在正畸粘接后，以标准化的方式将密封剂涂在 180 颗牛牙上（n = 10/密封剂）。首先测试了机械压力及其通过模拟不同时间点和标准化的电动清洁方案的影响。接着，由于不同的热应力，进行了热负荷测试，然后单独测试了模拟化学暴露的 pH 变化。使用数字显微镜和网格切缘和托槽顶（n = 32 个区域）来进行标准化的光学分析。与 CG（评分 0.00）相比，机械压力引起的材料损失 CP（1.2%）、FP（21.5%）、LB（22.2%）和 PN（81.1%）较低。PS 与 CG 无显著差异。热应力引起的材料损失 CP（0.5%）、PS（2%）、FP（2.6%）、LB（3.1%）和 PN（39.9%）较低。化学压力引起的材料损失 FP（1.8%）、PS（2.1%）、LB（5.5%）和 PN（39.6%）较低。CP 与 CG 无显著差异。只有 PS 和 CP 在机械、热和化学压力下具有可光学证明的良好弹性。特别是 PN 表现出明显较差的结果。
