A 12-month clinical evaluation of pit-and-fissure sealants placed with and without etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in newly-erupted teeth

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this one-year clinical study was to investigate the effect of two adhesive systems (Adper Single Bond, a two-step etch-and-rinse and Clearfil SE Bond, a two-step self-etch system) on pit-and-fissure sealant retention in newly-erupted teeth. This study compared the success of the sealants in mesial and distopalatal grooves with and without these two adhesive systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a clinical trial, 35 children aged 6-8 years undergoing sealant placement were recruited. This one-year clinical study scored 70 mesial and 70 distopalatal sealants of newly-erupted permanent maxillary first molar, with a split-mouth design. All children received sealant alone in one permanent maxillary molar tooth. Children were randomized into two groups. One group received Self-Etch (SE) bond plus sealant and the other group received Single Bond plus sealant in another permanent maxillary molar tooth. Clinical evaluation at 3, 6 and 12 months was performed and the retention was studied in terms of the success and failure. RESULTS: The success rate of sealant in the distopalatal groove, using SEB at 3, 6 and 12 months was 93.3% (95% CI: 68.0, 99.8), 73.3% (95% CI: 44.9, 92.2) and 66.7% (95% CI: 38.4, 88.2), respectively. It was greater than that of the distopalatal groove in SB group with a success rate of 62.5% (95% CI: 35.4, 84.8), 31.3% (95% CI: 11.8, 58.7) and 31.3% (95% CI: 11.8, 58.7), at the three evaluation periods. The success rate of sealant in the mesial groove using SEB was 86.6% (95% CI: 59.5, 98.3), 53.3% (95% CI: 26.6, 78.7) and 53.3% (95% CI: 26.6, 78.7), while this was 100% (95% CI: 79.4, 100.0), 81.3% (95% CI: 54.4, 96.0) and 81.3% (95% CI: 54.4, 96.0) using SB, at 3, 6 and 12-month evaluation periods. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of these two bonding agents in pit-and-fissure sealants under both isolated and contaminated conditions. Further, SE bond seemed to be less sensitive to moisture contamination

Conventional dual-cure versus self-adhesive resin cements in dentin bond integrity

During post preparation, the root canal is exposed to the oral cavity, and endodontic treatment may fail because of coronal leakage, bacterial infection and sealing inability of the luting cement. OBJECTIVE: this study quantified the interfacial continuity produced with conventional dual-cure and self-adhesive resin cements in the cervical (C), medium (M) and apical (A) thirds of the root. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty single-rooted human teeth were restored using Reforpost # 01 conical glass-fiber posts and different materials (N=10 per group): group AC=Adper&#8482; ScotchBond&#8482; Multi-purpose Plus + AllCem; group ARC=Adper&#8482; ScotchBond&#8482; Multi-purpose Plus + RelyX ARC; group U100=RelyX U100; and group MXC=Maxcem Elite. After being kept in 100% humidity at 37°C for 72 hours, the samples were sectioned parallel to their longitudinal axis and positive epoxy resin replicas were made. The scanning electron micrographs of each third section of the teeth were combined using Image Analyst software and measured with AutoCAD-2002. We obtained percentage values of the interfacial continuity. RESULTS: Interfacial continuity was similar in the apical, medium and cervical thirds of the roots within the groups (Friedman test, p>0.05). Comparison of the different cements in a same root third showed that interfacial continuity was lower in MXC (C=45.5%; M=48.5%; A=47.3%) than in AC (C=85.9%, M=81.8% and A=76.0%), ARC (C=83.8%, M=82.4% and A=75.0%) and U100 (C=84.1%, M=82.4% and A=77.3%) (Kruskal-Wallis test, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Allcem, Rely X ARC and U100 provide the best cementation; cementation was similar among root portions; in practical terms, U100 is the best resin because it combines good cementation and easy application and none of the cements provides complete interfacial continuity