Comparative study of the marginal adaptation quality in dental photocomposite materials for sealing fissures and pits of teeth
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2786-7684/2023-3-16Keywords:
teeth, caries, prevention, sealing, fissures and pits, photocomposite, quality of adhesionAbstract
Introduction. Today, fissure sealing is recognized as one of the most effective methods of exogenous dental caries prevention in pediatric and adult dentistry. Such recommendations are based on clinical and population studies. Achieving an optimal level of enamel adhesion and isolation by the sealant is a leading requirement for such materials, especially for composite and compomer enamel sealants. The aim of the study: to investigate microleakage in three modern photocomposite materials for sealing dental fissures. Materials and methods. A comparative study was performed for three materials – “Fissurit FX” (VOCO), “Clinpro™ Sealant” (3M™ ESPE™) and “Jen-Fissufil” (Jendental-Ukraine LLC). Each of the sealants was applied according to the manufacturer's instructions to the fissures of 10 extracted human molars. A day later, the teeth were thermocycled and further placed for 24 hours in a solution of methylene blue. Enamel sections were examined under a light microscope. The results of study and discussion. All the studied materials showed signs of microleakage, but the degree of its severity differed. In general, the best penetration into the depth of the fissure was found in “Jen-Fissufil” (2.60±0.56, M=3.00 points). The average score was slightly lower in “Clinpro™ Sealant” – 2.50±0.50 (M=2.50), and the lowest – in “Fissurit FX” (2.00±0.80, M=2.00) . A number of cases of preservation of adhesion of the material to the enamel (absence of microleaks) in the studied materials differed slightly – 3 out of 10 samples of the “Clinpro™ Sealant” sealant did not have microleaks, 4 samples out of 10 of the “Fissurit FX” sealant did not have microleaks, and, accordingly, half of the samples “Jen-Fissufil” had no microleakage. Evaluation of the degree of penetration of the sealant into fissures and microleaks in the samples in which dye penetration was detected between the enamel and the mass of the sealant also did not reveal significant differences between the three materials. Conclusions: The study of the level of penetration of the material into the tooth fissure and microleakage (quality of marginal adaptation) in three modern photocomposite sealants for enamel showed similar results in laboratory conditions. “Jen-Fissufil” showed the lowest conditional level of microleakage and the best penetration into tooth fissures. Statistical tests showed no significant difference in the results of the application of all three materials.
References
Бородовицина С.И., Савельева Н.А., Таболина Е.С. Профилактика стоматологических заболеваний. ОТСиОП, 2019. 264 с.
Мочалов Ю.А., Кеян Д.Н., Пасичнык М.А., Кравцов Р.В. Показатели силы адгезии к твердым тканям невитальных зубов стоматологических фотокомпозитных пломбировочных материалов в комбинации с различными адгезивными системами. Медицинские новости Грузии. 2021. 6(315). С.61–65. URL: https://www.geomednews.com/ru/v315-june-2021.html
Хоменко Л.А. Профилактика стоматологических заболеваний. Киев: Книга плюс, 2010. С.39– 49.
Ahovuo-Saloranta A., Forss H., Walsh T., Nordblad A., Mäkelä M., Worthington H.V. Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017. Vol.7. Art. No.: CD001830. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub5.
Amend S., Frankenberger R., Boutsiouki C., Scharrelmann V., Winter J., Krämer N. Microleakage of pit and fissure sealings placed after enamel conditioning with phosphoric acid or with self-etching primers/adhesives. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021. Vol.7. P.763–771. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.420
Bayrak G.D., Gurdogan-Guler E.B., Yildirim Y., Ozturk D., Selvi-Kuvvetli S. Assessment of shear bond strength and microleakage of fissure sealant following enamel deproteinization: An in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020. Vol. 12(3). P.220-226. doi: 10.4317/jced.56281
Beresescu L., Pacurar M., Vlasa A., Stoica A.M., Dako T., Petcu B., Esian D. Comparative Assessment of Retention and Caries Protective Effectiveness of a Hydrophilic and a Conventional Sealant – A Clinical Trial. Children. 2022. Vol. 9. P. 646-648. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9050646
Butail A., Dua P., Mangla R. Evaluation of Marginal Microleakage and Depth of Penetration of Different Materials Used as Pit and Fissure Sealants: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2020. Vol. 13(1). P. 38–42. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1742
Cvikl B., Moritz A., Bekes K. Pit and Fissure Sealants – A Comprehensive Review. Dent J (Basel). 2018. Vol.6. doi: 10.3390/dj6020018.
Gorseta K., Borzabadi-Farahani A., Vrazic T., Glavina D. An In-Vitro Analysis of Microleakage of Self-Adhesive Fissure Sealant vs. Conventional and GIC Fissure Sealants. Dent J (Basel). 2019. Vol. 7(2). P.32. doi: 10.3390/dj7020032.
Hatirli H., Yasa B., Yasa E. Microleakage and penetration depth of different fissure sealant materials after cyclic thermo-mechanic and brushing simulation. Dent Mater J. 2018. Vol. 37(1). P.15-23. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2016-234.
Hosseinipour Z.S., Heidari A., Shahrabi M., Poorzandpoush K. Microleakage of a Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, a Self-Adhesive Fissure Sealant and a Conventional Fissure Sealant in Permanent Teeth with/without Saliva Contamination. Front Dent. 2019. Vol.16(4). P. 239-247. doi: 10.18502/fid.v16i4.2082
ISO 4049:2019 «Dentistry – Polymer-based restorative materials».
ISO 6874:2005 «Dentistry – Polymer-based pit and fissure sealants».
Kamath V., Hebbal M., Ankola A., Sankeshwari R., Jalihal S., Choudhury A., Soliman M., Eldwakhly E. Comparison of Retention between Conventional and Nanofilled Resin Sealants in a Paediatric Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Med. 2022. Vol. 11. P.3276. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123276
Kane B., Karren J., Garcia-Godoy C., Garcia-Godoy F. Sealant adaptation and penetration into occlusal fissures. Am J Dent. 2009. Vol. 22.P. 89-91.
Lupan I., Stepco E., Șevcenco N. Prevenţia afecţiunilor stomatologice. Compendiu. Chișinău: Centrul Editorial-Poligrafic “Medicina”, 2014. P.139–151.
Nahvi A., Razavian A, Abedi H., Charati J.Y. A comparison of microleakage in self-etch fissure sealants and conventional fissure sealants with total-etch or self-etch adhesive systems. Eur J Dent. 2018. Vol. 12(2). P.242-246. doi: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_63_18.
Nakabayashi N., Kojima K., Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res. 1982. Vol. 16. P.265–273.
Özgür B., Kargın S.T., Ölmez M.S. Clinical evaluation of giomer– and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent molars affected by molar-incisor hypomineralization: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2022. Vol. 22. P. 275. doi:10.1186/s12903-022-02298-9.
Pardi V., Sinhoreti M.A.C., Pereira A.C., Ambrosano G.M.B., Meneghim M.C. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of different materials used as pit-and-fissure sealants. Braz Dent J. 2006. Vol. 17. P. 49-52. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402006000100011
Prabakar J., Indiran M.A., Kumar P., Dooraikannan S., Jeevanandan G. Microleakage Assessment of Two Different Pit and Fissure Sealants: A Comparative Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2020. Vol. 13(Suppl 1). P. 29-33. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1862.
Roulet J.-F., Zimmer S. Профессиональная профилактика в практике стоматолога. Москва: МЕДпресс–информ, 2010. C.93–96.
Shingare P., Chaugule V. An In Vitro Microleakage Study for Comparative Analysis of Two Types of Resinbased Sealants Placed by Using Three Different Types of Techniques of Enamel Preparation. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021. Vol. 14(4). P. 475–481. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1991
Zervou C., Kugel G., Leone C., Zavras A., Doherty E., White G. Enameloplasty effects on microleakage of pit and fissure sealants under load: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2000. Vol. 24. P. 279-285.
