Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center 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. 2022 Sep 27;12(1):16133. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-19702-7.
The enamel can be protected by applying orthodontic sealants at the bracket base to avoid the development of white spot lesions caused by inadequate oral hygiene. The aim of this study was to investigate the mechanical resistance of five commonly used orthodontic sealants against brushing in comparison to a positive group. Hydroxyapatite discs were bonded with a metal bracket and a piece of arch-wire was ligated in order to simulate a daily clinical situation (n = 48). Samples were divided into 6 groups of respectively 8 specimens. Sealants were applied around the bracket base according to manufacturer's instructions. Following sealants were used: Group 1: Pro Seal (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Illinois, USA); 2: Light Bond (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Illinois, USA); 3: ClinproXT Varnish (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany); 4: ProtectoCaF2 Nano (BonaDent GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany); 5: Fluor Protector and 6: Tetric EvoFlow (both Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan Liechtenstein). Tooth brushing were simulated for 6 weeks and 6 months with an electric toothbrush. The sealant thickness was measured by mechanical (MP) and optical profilometry (OP) at baseline, after 6 weeks and after 6 months of brushing. Statistical analysis was performed according to two mixed linear models and post hoc Tukey-Kramer comparisons. The significance level was set at 5% (α ≤ 0.05). Pro Seal (MP: 9%; OP: 22%) and Light Bond (MP: 19%; OP: 16%) showed the lowest changes in sealant thickness after 6 months of simulated brushing. ClinproXT Varnish and Tetric EvoFlow recorded no statistically significant results (p > 0.05). The fluoride varnishes ProtectoCaF2 Nano and Fluor Protector could not be conclusively evaluated since the thickness of the sealants could not be determined at baseline. The results of both evaluation methods MP and OP are in good agreement. Pro Seal and Light Bond were resistant against tooth brushing and were able to adequately keep the bracket environment sealed even after 6 months. The two different measuring methods, MP and OP, provide a precise impression of the changes in the surface.
釉质可以通过在托槽底部应用正畸密封剂来保护，以避免因口腔卫生不足而导致的白斑病的发展。本研究的目的是比较 5 种常用正畸密封剂的机械阻力，以比较刷牙的效果。羟基磷灰石圆盘用金属托槽粘结，并用一段弓丝结扎，以模拟日常临床情况（n=48）。样本分为 6 组，每组 8 个标本。根据制造商的说明，将密封剂涂在托槽底部周围。使用的密封剂有：1：Pro Seal（Reliance Orthodontic Products，Itasca，Illinois，USA）；2：Light Bond（Reliance Orthodontic Products，Itasca，Illinois，USA）；3：ClinproXT Varnish（3M ESPE，Seefeld，Germany）；4：ProtectoCaF2 Nano（BonaDent GmbH，Frankfurt am Main，Germany）；5：Fluor Protector 和 6：Tetric EvoFlow（均为 Ivoclar Vivadent AG，列支敦士登沙安）。用电动牙刷模拟刷牙 6 周和 6 个月。在基线、6 周后和 6 个月后用机械（MP）和光学轮廓仪（OP）测量密封剂厚度。根据两个混合线性模型和事后 Tukey-Kramer 比较进行统计分析。显著性水平设为 5%（α≤0.05）。Pro Seal（MP：9%；OP：22%）和 Light Bond（MP：19%；OP：16%）在模拟刷牙 6 个月后显示出最低的密封剂厚度变化。ClinproXT Varnish 和 Tetric EvoFlow 没有记录到统计学上的显著结果（p＞0.05）。氟化物密封剂 ProtectoCaF2 Nano 和 Fluor Protector 由于无法确定基线时密封剂的厚度，因此无法得出结论。两种评估方法（MP 和 OP）的结果非常一致。Pro Seal 和 Light Bond 能够抵抗刷牙，即使在 6 个月后，仍能有效地保持托槽环境的密封。两种不同的测量方法，MP 和 OP，都能精确地反映表面的变化。
