Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Sealant Research Articles

Assessment of influence of LED curing units used on microhardness of resin-modified glass ionomer sealants

Aim: Resin modified glass ionomer (RMGI) is class of material that can be used as sealant for preventing and arresting the progression of caries in pits and fissures. As these are hybrid materials, their properties can be affected by factors related to the polymerization process. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the influence of different generations of LED curing units (Elipar DeepCure-L and VALO Grand) on Knoop microhardness values (KHN) of RMGI sealants (Clinpro XT and Vitremer). Methods: Forty cylindrical specimens (6mm ø x 1 mm high) were prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions and divided into four groups (n=10) according to the type of RMGI and LED used. The KHN of the top surface of each sample was calculated 7 days after light-curing. Data were submitted to two-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Results: Vitremer had higher KHN values than Clinpro XT after using both LEDs (p<0.0001), but especially when light-cured with the use of VALO Grand (p<0.0001). Whereas the KHN value of Clinpro was not influenced by the LED device (p>0.05). Conclusions: Top surface microhardness values of RGMI sealants were affected by both material composition and generations of LED curing units used. Third generation LED curing units seemed to be more efficient for the polymerization of RMGI-based sealants.

Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents.

Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents.

Pit and fissure sealants penetration capacity and their correlation with fissure morphology.

Background and aimsPit and fissure sealant placement corresponds to an effective approach of the prevention of caries on occlusal surfaces. Fissure morphology and dental material characteristics are the key factors for sealant effectiveness. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the penetration ability of two commercially available pit and fissure sealants.MethodsTwenty sound human premolars extracted for orthodontic purpose have been sealed according to manufacturer’s instructions as follows: Group I (n=10), light-cured unfilled resin-based sealant, Admira Seal® (Voco GmbH); Group II (n=10), resin modified glass ionomer sealant without varnish, GC Fuji Triage® (GC Corporation). The teeth have been sectioned buccal-lingually in the middle of the occlusal surface, and the sections were examined at 40× with an inverted microscope.ResultsPenetration of the sealants was found to be greater in U-type fissure pattern (91.69%) followed by V-type (75.42%), IK-type (71.24%) and then in I-type (63.98%). The depth of penetration of GC Fuji Triage® (82.85%) demonstrated to be superior to Admira Seal® (76.28%).ConclusionU fissure design was more common than other fissure patterns and showed significantly higher penetration for the two type of sealants evaluated. Resin modified glass ionomer sealant used in the present study perform comparably with the filled resin sealant.

A comparative clinical study on efficacy of nanofilled resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer pit and fissure sealant in molar tooth

The present study compared the clinical performance of nanoparticulated resin modified glass ionomer and conventional glass ionomer pit and fissure sealant on permanent molars. Fifty patient having bilateral occlusal grooves in pits and fissures of the occlusal surface were included for this study where 50 teeth were treated with nanopaticulated resin modified and the remaining 50 teeth were subjected to conventional glass ionomer sealants. The color match, retention and marginal adaptation were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months and statistical analysis was performed by Chi-square test to assess the difference between the two sealants; a values of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. The results showed that although there were no significant differences between two sealants at baseline and 3 months observation period but nanoparticulated resin modified glass ionomer sealants showed better clinical performance than that of conventional glass ionomer sealants at 12 months and the differences between two sealants were statistically significant (p<0.05). It can be concluded that naqnoparticulated resin modified glass ionomer sealant exhibited better color stability, more retention, and better marginal adaptation than those of conventional glass ionomer sealants at 12 months observation period.

Microleakage of conventional light-cure resin-based fissure sealant and resin-modified glass ionomer sealant after application of a fluoride varnish on demineralized enamel.

BackgroundInternational guidelines on the prevention of caries recommend sealing of the pits and fissures of the permanent molars. There is no evidence on which type of material is most effective on demineralized enamel.AimTo evaluate the microleakage of a conventional light-cured, resin-based fissure sealant (LCRBS), GrandiO Seal, and a resin-modified glass ionomer sealant (RMGIS), Vitremer, after application of a fluoride varnish, Bifluorid 12, on demineralized enamel.Design80 human third molars were divided into eight groups. The groups combined the three study factors (1) type of enamel (intact or demineralized); (2) enamel non-varnished or varnished with Biflourid12; and (3) type of sealant (GrandiO Seal or Vitremer). The percentage of microleakage after thermocycling was measured using imaging analysis software. The Kruskal-Wallis plus Dunn tests were used to compare differences in microleakage in the different groups.ResultsThe lowest microleakage was in the unvarnished groups, and was the same for GrandiO Seal and Vitremer. When varnish was applied, microleakage was greater in demineralized enamel than in intact enamel for both LCRBS and RMGIS.ConclusionThe application of fluoride varnish on demineralized enamel increases the microleakage of both GrandiO Seal and Vitremer.

Comparative efficacy of nanofilled and microfilled resin-modified glass ionomer as pits and fissure sealant in permanent molar teeth

<p>The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficacy of nanofilled and microfilled resin- modified glass ionomer as pits and fissure sealants in permanent molar teeth. Ninety six teeth having fissure at the occlusal surface were randomly divided into two groups: Group I: Treated by nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer sealant and Group II: Treated by microfilled resin- modified glass ionomer sealants. Clinical assessment was performed by modified Ryge´s criteria by means of retention, color match, marginal adaptation at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up visit. Chi-square test was used for testing differences between the two groups; a value of p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. The results revealed that at 12 months observation period, nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer sealant showed better retention, color stability and marginal adaptation than that of microfilled resin-modified glass ionomer sealants. Furthermore, the differences between two groups in respect to marginal adaptation and color match were statistically significant (p<0.05). It can be concluded that nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer sealant could be a better alternative to microfilled resin- modified glass ionomer sealant.</p>

Comparative study of resin sealant and resin modified glass ionomer as pit and fissure sealant

<p>The purpose of the present study was to compare the marginal integrity of resin modified glass ionomer cement with that of resin sealant, <em>in vitro</em>. Forty artificial pit and fissure cavities were prepared in occlusal surface of extracted premolar teeth by using ¼ round carbide bur. Cavities were condensed with artificial organic debris followed by cleaning with prophylaxis pumice brush and paste and then separated into two treatment groups. In Group A, 15 fissure cavities were sealed by resin sealant and in Group B, 15 fissure cavities were sealed by resin modified glass ionomer sealant. These specimens were subjected to thermo-cycling followed by dye penetration test. The remaining 5 cavities from each group were analyzed for debris score by the SEM. The results of the microleakage test showed that the efficacy of preventing microleakage of samples sealed by resin modified glass ionomer sealant was higher than the samples sealed by resin sealant. However, no significant differences were found. It can be concluded that use of resin modified glass ionomer sealant is a good alternative for sealing pits and fissures.</p>

Pit and Fissure Sealants with Different Materials: Resin Based xGlass Ionomer Cement –Results after Six Months

Objective: To compare the retention and superficial characteristics between a new resin-modified glass ionomer sealant and resin sealant. In addition, the teeth sealed were compared to partially erupted first molars (control group) without sealing in relation to the incidence of dental caries. Material and Methods: Initially, 31 children aged 6-8 years participated in this study. The study children showed caries history, but had at least two healthy first molars. A total of 114 teeth were randomly divided into three groups: Clinpro (n=36), Fluroshield (n=38), and control (n=40). The two sealants were applied under relative isolation after previous prophylaxis and enamel etching with phosphoric acid 35% (15s). Clinical evaluation was performed by two calibrated examiners. They evaluated the retention and surface characteristics of the occlusal surface. Results: Fluroshield® showed significantly greater retention than ClinproTM Varnish® XT (p=0.002). However, the performance analysis of the success and failure of retention presented no significant difference between the materials (p=0.141). Concerning to the surface characteristics, Fluroshield performed better than Clinpro after analyzing the marginal deterioration, marginal discoloration, and superficial discoloration (p<0.05). The surface texture of the materials under study was similar (p=0.071). Sealed groups (Clinpro=Fluroshield) showed similar performance in the prevention of dental caries, which was significantly lower than that of control group (p=0.001). Conclusion: Both sealants, Fluroshield® and Clinpro TM Varnish® XT were effective in preventing caries lesion within 6 months, although Fluroshield sealant showed better clinical retention.

Strong evidence for the effectiveness of resin based sealants

Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline via OVID, EMBASE via OVID; SCISEARCH, CAplus, INSPEC, NTIS and PASCAL via STN Easy and DARE, NHS EED, HTA (all to September/ November 2012) and ClinicalTrials.gov (to July 2012). There were no restrictions on language or date of publication. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of at least 12 months duration comparing no sealant with sealant, or different types of sealants, for preventing caries of occlusal or approximal surfaces of premolar or molar teeth in children and adolescents under 20 years of age. Screening of search results, data extraction and assessment of trial quality (using GRADE methods) were by two reviewers independently. There were 34 trials of children aged five to 16 years, with 12 trials (2575 participants) comparing sealants with no sealant, 21 trials (3202 participants) comparing one sealant with another and one trial (752 participants) comparing two types of sealant with no sealant.Resin sealants compared with no sealants prevented caries in the first permanent molars of children five to 10 years old (six trials at low risk of bias with two years follow up), (odds ratio (OR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.19). At 48 to 54 months follow-up, the caries preventive effect was maintained (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.28) although there were only four trials (two were at low and two at high risk of bias).No conclusions could be drawn as to whether glass ionomer sealants compared with no sealants prevented caries at 2 year follow-up. The mean difference in DFS was -0.18, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.03.The relative effectiveness of one type of sealant compared to a different type of sealant was inconclusive as there was great variation in comparisons, outcomes, times of outcomes and background fluoride levels in the 21 studies. There was insufficient evidence for the relative superiority of glass ionomer and resin sealants (very low event rate in many of the 15 trials). There were inconsistent results for resin-modified glass ionomer sealants compared with resin sealants. No difference in caries increments were found in the two small trials of polyacid-modified resin sealants compared with resin sealants. Sealants compared with no sealants, on the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars in children and adolescents, are effective at reducing caries up to 48 months. There is less evidence for longer term follow-up and little for the relative effectiveness of sealing in less high caries risk children. No conclusions could be drawn on the relative effectiveness of different types of sealants.

Clinical; Evaluation of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Sealant under Simple Exclusion of Moisture for Caries-preventive Effects on Immature Permanent First Molars

Clinical; Evaluation of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Sealant under Simple Exclusion of Moisture for Caries-preventive Effects on Immature Permanent First Molars

Glass-ionomers have cariostatic effect

Design A randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted over a period of 3 years.Intervention Either conventional glass-ionomer (Ketac-bond; 3M ESPE St. Paul, MN 55144-1000) or resin-modified glass-ionomer (Vitremer; 3M ESPE St. Paul, MN 55144-1000) sealants were applied to first permanent molars, and oral hygiene education was given. Clinical evaluations were carried out at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after the application of the sealant.Outcome measure Retention rates and occlusal caries incidence were monitored.Results The difference in retention rates between the two materials was statistically significant. The experimental groups showed a caries incidence of 93, 78, 49, and 56% lower than the control group (P<0.01) for the four evaluation periods, respectively (see Table 1).Conclusions The retention rates for glass-ionomer were low. Nevertheless, the statistically lower caries incidence in experimental groups compared with control group suggests a cariostatic effect.

Effects of tooth-conditioning agents on bond strength of a resin-modified glass–ionomer sealant to enamel

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of tooth-conditioning agents on bond strength of resin-modified glass–ionomer sealant (Fuji III LC) to bovine enamel as well as on dissolution of calcium ions from the bovine enamel surfaces. Methods. The enamel surfaces of bovine lower incisors were treated with 10 and 20% polyacrylic acid, 12% citric acid and 35% phosphoric acid for 20 s. Fuji III LC was applied to the etched enamel surfaces, and the shear bond strength of each specimen was measured using an Instron Universal Testing Instrument. The amounts of calcium ions dissolved from the treated enamel surfaces were also measured using a polarized Zeeman atomic absorptiometer. Results. In specimens pretreated with distilled water, 10% polyacrylic acid, 20% polyacrylic acid, 12% citric acid and 35% phosphoric acid, the mean values of shear bond strength were 5.5, 12.5, 15.2, 15.2 and 15.1 MPa, respectively, and the amounts of Ca 2+ dissolved from the enamel surfaces were 5.6, 41.4, 88.5, 131.6 and 588.3 μg/cm 2, respectively. Conclusions. The adhesion of a resin-modified glass–ionomer sealant to bovine enamel was significantly improved by the use of tooth-conditioning agents. Especially, treatment of an enamel surface with 20% polyacrylic acid results in good shear both strength and relatively small degree of enamel erosion.

Clinical Evaluation of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Sealant for Caries-preventive Effects on Immature Permanent First Molars

Clinical Evaluation of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Sealant for Caries-preventive Effects on Immature Permanent First Molars

Histological evaluation of repair using a bioresorbable membrane beneath a resin-modified glass ionomer after mechanical furcation perforation in dogs' teeth

Resorbable barriers have been shown both clinically and histologically to produce favorable periodontal regenerative outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the histological response to one such resorbable barrier (Atrisorb) when used as a matrix under a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) sealant in the repair of furcation perforations in experimental animals. After anesthesia, pulp extirpation and filling of radicular canals with zinc oxide-eugenol cement, furcal perforations were made in 30 lower premolar (P2, P3, and P4) teeth of labrador dogs with a 1 mm diameter round bur in a conventional handpiece. The perforated teeth were randomly divided into two groups of 15 teeth. Group 1 teeth were treated with RMGI alone and group 2 with the resorbable barrier under RMGI. Six teeth without perforations served as negative controls. Pulp chambers of all teeth were filled with RMGI cement. Animals were sacrificed after 3 months. The teeth and the surrounding structures were processed for light microscopy. There were no differences found between results for glass ionomer alone and barrier with glass ionomer. The conclusion of this study is that placement of a resorbable barrier at the pulp chamber aspect of a furcation perforation did not result in superior healing, compared with the use of resin-modified glass ionomer alone.

The etiology and prevalence of ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molar: By Franklin Pulver. J. Dent. Children 35: 138–145, March, 1968

The use of pit and fissure sealants have been well supported in permanent teeth, but no concrete evidence is available to support this procedure in primary molars. This review aims to systematically assess randomized controlled trials and summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of different sealants in prevention and arrest of the pit and fissure occlusal caries in primary molars of children.Four electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2018. Seven studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool, and evaluated the certainty in the evidence adopting the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach. Odds ratio and retention rate of different sealants were recalculated and analyzed.This review identified no significant difference in the overall caries incidence and progression when evaluated over 24 months between (1) resin-based sealant (RBS) and glass ionomer sealants (GIS) or resin-modified GIS; (2) conventional and newly developed RBS; (3) autopolymerized and light-polymerized RBS; (4) RBS with topical fluoride application and topical fluoride alone; and (5) RBS with topical fluoride application and resin infiltration with topical fluoride application. The pooled estimates of the mean retention rates of RBS and GIS on primary molars over an 18-months period were 85.94% and 23.18%, respectively. The certainty in the evidence of each outcome was determined as low or very low mainly because of high risk of overall bias and imprecision.There are currently insufficient well-controlled randomized controlled clinical trials to determine whether sealants are beneficial in preventing or arresting noncavitated occlusal caries in the primary molars.