Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • Regarding their resistance five sealants were tested in vitro after experiencing mechanical, thermal and chemical stress

  • Four materials were included in the mechanical load modelling, since no material loss was observed on any surface or at any time with Tetric EvoFlow and the material loss was so slight with Pro Seal that too many cells contained the score value = 0

  • Light Bond showed a significant difference to Clinpro XT Varnish and Protecto CaF2 Nano (p < 0.0001), but no significant difference to Fluor Protector

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Regarding their resistance five sealants were tested in vitro after experiencing mechanical, thermal and chemical stress. In recent years, increased attention has been paid to sealing of the buccal surfaces and the use of special sealants and fluoride varnishes These products are expected to provide long-term caries prevention and additional protection against external stresses. A flowable, light-curing, radiopaque nanohybrid composite was used as the positive control group (Tetric EvoFlow, Ivoclar Vivadent, Ellwangen, Germany) These five frequently used sealants were investigated in vitro towards their resistance after experiencing mechanical pressure, thermal burden and chemical exposure causing demineralization and WSL. The following hypotheses will be tested: Null hypothesis: Mechanical, thermal and chemical stresses do not affect the sealants investigated. Alternative hypothesis: Mechanical, thermal and chemical stresses affect the sealants investigated

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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