Anika Tahsin Hossain, Harnirattisai Choltacha, Nakornchai Siriruk, Jirarattanasopha Varangkanar
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Int Dent J. 2025 Aug;75(4):100824. doi: 10.1016/j.identj.2025.04.005. Epub 2025 May 17.
Hydrophilic sealants were developed to overcome hydrophobic sealant moisture sensitivity; however, there is still a limited understanding of their performance. This study aimed to compare microshear bond strength, penetration depth, and microleakage of hydrophilic UltraSeal XT hydro and hydrophobic Clinpro resin-based sealants placed in various surface conditions.
Seventy-two enamel slices and 60 molars were randomly assigned into two groups: Group 1 UltraSeal XT hydro and Group 2 Clinpro, which were further subdivided into three groups based on the enamel surface conditions (dry, slightly moist, and saliva-contaminated). After applying sealant and undergoing 5000 thermocycling cycles, microshear bond strength was tested. Additionally, penetration depth and microleakage were evaluated under a light microscope after staining with 50% silver nitrate solution.
Group 1 demonstrated significantly higher microshear bond strength than Group 2 across all experimental conditions (P < .001). Both sealants showed the highest microshear bond strengths under dry conditions, followed by slightly moist and saliva-contaminated conditions (P < .001). The penetration depth between the two sealant types was comparable within each surface condition. However, both sealants showed significantly deeper penetration on dry enamel surfaces compared to slightly moist and saliva-contaminated surfaces (P < .001). Similarly, both sealants exhibited significantly less microleakage on dry enamel surfaces compared to slightly moist and saliva-contaminated surfaces (P < .001). While the mean microleakage value was similar between the two sealants under dry and saliva-contaminated conditions, Group 1 showed significantly lower microleakage than Group 2 under moist conditions (P < .001).
The hydrophilic UltraSeal XT hydro sealant exhibited superior bond strength compared to the hydrophobic Clinpro sealant across all surface conditions. On slightly moist surfaces, UltraSeal XT hydro showed significantly lower microleakage than Clinpro. Both sealants exhibited superior sealing and retentive ability on dry enamel surfaces compared to the other surfaces.
开发亲水性封闭剂是为了克服疏水性封闭剂对水分的敏感性;然而,人们对其性能的了解仍然有限。本研究旨在比较亲水性的UltraSeal XT hydro封闭剂和疏水性的Clinpro树脂基封闭剂在不同表面条件下的微剪切粘结强度、渗透深度和微渗漏情况。
将72片釉质切片和60颗磨牙随机分为两组:第1组为UltraSeal XT hydro组,第2组为Clinpro组,然后根据釉质表面条件(干燥、微湿和唾液污染)进一步细分为三组。在应用封闭剂并进行5000次热循环后,测试微剪切粘结强度。此外,在用50%硝酸银溶液染色后,在光学显微镜下评估渗透深度和微渗漏情况。
在所有实验条件下,第1组的微剪切粘结强度均显著高于第2组(P <.001)。两种封闭剂在干燥条件下的微剪切粘结强度最高,其次是微湿和唾液污染条件(P <.001)。在每种表面条件下,两种封闭剂类型之间的渗透深度相当。然而,与微湿和唾液污染表面相比,两种封闭剂在干燥釉质表面的渗透深度明显更深(P <.001)。同样,与微湿和唾液污染表面相比,两种封闭剂在干燥釉质表面的微渗漏明显更少(P <.001)。虽然在干燥和唾液污染条件下两种封闭剂的平均微渗漏值相似,但在潮湿条件下第1组的微渗漏明显低于第2组(P <.001)。
在所有表面条件下,亲水性的UltraSeal XT hydro封闭剂的粘结强度均优于疏水性的Clinpro封闭剂。在微湿表面上,UltraSeal XT hydro的微渗漏明显低于Clinpro。与其他表面相比,两种封闭剂在干燥釉质表面均表现出优异的密封和保留能力。