A 48-Month Clinical Evaluation of Fissure Sealants Placed with Different Adhesive Systems

Aim: To compare the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 48 months. Materials and Methods: The authors enrolled 244 teeth, each with no restoration or sealant and no detectable caries, from 16 patients. The sealants were placed with Solobond M two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or Futurabond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = completely retained, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. ThePearson chi(2) test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period. Results: The retention rates for sealants in the Solobond M group were significantly higher than those in the Futurabond NR group in all periods of evaluation (p0.05). There was no new caries formation throughout the 48-month recall period. Conclusion: Fissure sealants placed with etch-and-rinse adhesive showed better retention rates than those placed with self-etch adhesive.WoSScopu

Clinical comparison of Bur- and laser-prepared minimally invasive occlusal resin composite restorations: Two-year follow-up

This study evaluated the two-year clinical performance of two minimally invasive cavity preparation techniques, bur and laser, in Class I occlusal resin composite restorations. Twenty-seven patients, each having at least one pair of occlusal caries, were enrolled in this study. For each patient, one of the cavities was prepared with a diamond bur, and the other was prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG laser. The cavities were restored with a nanofilled flowable resin composite, Grandio Flow, using an etch-andrinse adhesive, Solobond M. A total of 108 restorations were placed in molars by a single operator. The restorations were evaluated according to modified Cvar/Ryge criteria. The evaluations were performed at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after initial placement by two calibrated operators. The Chi-square and Fisher\u27s exact test were used for statistical analysis. All the patients were available during all evaluated periods, resulting in a recall rate of 100%. The retention rates of the restorations at 24 months were 98.1% for bur and 100% for the laser-prepared group. After 24 months, 5.6% of the bur-prepared and 7.4% of the laser-prepared restorations were rated Bravo in marginal discoloration (p\u3e0.05). Bur-prepared (9.3%) and laser-prepared (13%) restorations were rated Bravo in marginal adaptation (p\u3e0.05). There were no significant differences between the two cavity preparation techniques regarding the evaluated parameters (p\u3e0.05). Both cavity preparation techniques performed equally, with excellent outcomes after a 24-month period

Evaluation of the surface hardness of composite resins before and after polishing at different times Avaliação da dureza superficial de resinas compostas antes e após o polimento em diferentes tempos

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface hardness of six composite resins: Revolution, Natural Flow, Fill Magic Flow, Flow-it! (flowables), Silux Plus (microfilled) and Z100 (minifilled) before and after polishing at different times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this purpose, 240 specimens (5mm diameter, 1.4mm high) were prepared. Vickers hardness was determined before and after polishing at different times: immediately, 24h, 7 and 21 days after preparation of the samples. Statistical analysis was performed by ANOVA and Tukey test. RESULTS: There was no difference in the hardness of flowable resins, which had lower hardness than the minifilled resin. The minifilled resin showed the highest surface hardness as compared to the other materials (p<0.01). All materials exhibited higher hardness after polishing, being more evident after 7 days. CONCLUSION: It may be concluded that, regardless of the composite resin, surface hardness was considerably increased when polishing was delayed and performed 1 week after preparation of the samples.<br>PROPOSIÇÃO: O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a dureza superficial de seis resinas compostas - Revolution, Natural Flow, Fill Magic Flow, Flow-it! (flowables), Silux Plus (micropartículas) e Z100 (híbrida) - antes e após o polimento realizado em diferentes tempos. MATERIAL E MÉTODO: Foram confeccionados 240 corpos-de-prova circulares (5mm de diâmetro e 1,4mm de altura). A dureza Vickers foi obtida antes e após o polimento realizado em diferentes tempos: imediatamente, 24 horas, 7 dias e 21 dias após a confecção do corpo-de-prova. Os dados foram analisados estatisticamente por meio da ANOVA e do Teste de Tukey. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferença entre as resinas compostas flowable, as quais apresentaram os menores valores de dureza. A resina composta híbrida demonstrou os melhores resultados. Todos os materiais exibiram aumento de dureza após a realização do polimento, que foi mais evidente após 7 dias. CONCLUSÃO: Pôde-se concluir que, independente do tipo de resina composta, a dureza superficial foi consideravelmente maior quando o polimento foi realizado 1 semana após a confecção dos corpos-de-prova

Comparison Of Acid Versus Laser Etching On The Clinical Performance Of A Fissure Sealant: 24-Month Results

Objective: To compare the clinical performance of a pit and fissure sealant placed with the use of different enamel preparation methods, i.e. acid or Er,Cr:YSGG laser etching, over 24 months. Methods: Sixteen subjects (15 female, 1 male) with no restorations or sealant present on their fissures and no detectable caries participated. Using a table of random numbers, a total of 112 sealants (56 with acid-etching, 56 with laser etching) were placed on the permanent premolar and molar teeth. All restorative procedures except for application of the laser were performed by the same dentist. After completion of the fissure preparation either with acid or laser, the adhesive was applied; then a pit and fissure sealant, Clinpro Sealant, was placed and polymerized. Clinical evaluations were done at baseline and at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up visits by two calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which etching method had been used. The retention of sealants and caries were evaluated with the aid of a dental explorer and an intra-oral mirror. Each sealant was evaluated using the following criteria: 1=completely retained; 2=partial loss; 3= total loss. The Pearson chisquare test was used to evaluate differences in the retention rates among the sealants used with different etching methods. Results: All patients attended the 24-month follow-up visit and all sealants were evaluated (total recall rate 100%). At the end of 24 months, 83.9% of the sealants from laser group and 85.7% of those from acid-etch group were recorded as "completely retained". There were no statistically significant differences in retention rates among the preparation methods after all evaluation periods (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between the retention rates of premolar and molars at each evaluation period. No secondary caries was detected in association with any sealants. Conclusion: The clinical performance of fissure sealants placed after acid or Er,-Cr:YSGG laser etching was similar.WoSScopu