Abstract
Objective:To compare the microleakage around resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) based sealants and flowable resin based sealants placed with or without ameloplasty in extracted human teeth.Methods:This in-vitro experimental study was conducted at the Operative Dentistry Department, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan from June 2017 to December 2018. Sixty extracted human molars and premolars were assigned to four groups (n=15) each, according to the type of fissure sealant (flowable resin based sealant or resin modified glass ionomer based sealant) used and either placed with or without ameloplasty. Specimens were thermocycled and then immersed in 1% methylene blue for 24 hours. Specimens were then sectioned and examined using stereo-microscope (50X) for microleakage that was scored on an ordinal scale. Mann-Whitney U test and Ordinal regression were applied. Level of significance kept at 0.05.Results:There was a statistically significant difference (p-value <0.001) between the two sealant types for the microleakage scores. Sealants placed with ameloplasty demonstrated significantly higher microleakage values (p-value <0.001).Conclusion:Microleakage was found to be more pronounced in RMGIC based sealants compared to the resin based sealants. Ameloplasty resulted in higher leakage around the sealants irrespective of the chemistry of material.
Highlights
The greatest microleakage was observed around resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) based sealants placed with ameloplasty and the least was observed for resin based sealants done without any ameloplasty
RBC sealants were found to be better than RMGIC sealants
Ameloplasty exerted a negative influence as sealants placed with ameloplasty exhibited poor microleakage. (TableII).Regression equation suggests that sealants placed without ameloplasty yield the least microleakage scores (Table-III)
Summary
An in vitro experimental study was conducted from June to December 2018 at Operative Dentistry department, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan. The sealant materials were applied according to the manufacturer’s direction For both groups, teeth were treated with 37% phosphoric acid etchant. For RBC; the sealant material was air thin and light cured for 20 seconds after applying the adhesive (Adper Single Bond; 3M-ESPE, St.Paul, MN, USA). We used a previous study as a reference.[9] The mean score of glass ionomer based sealant was 1.27±1.01 and for resin based sealant it was 0.82±1.19. Keeping this difference at confidence level 0.95 and power of test of 0.8, the sample size requirements turned out to be 55 teeth.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
