INTRODUCTION:
Dental caries is still highly prevalent all over the world. The occlusal surface of the teeth has pit and fissures which provide good environment for microbes causing it. Sealing these areas reduces the risk of occlusal caries which is done by pit and fissure sealant. The success of pit and fissure sealant depends on the marginal sealing ability of the material. There is limited l iterature evidence on Conseal F and Embrace Wet Bond in terms of marginal sealing ability. With this background the present invit ro study was carried out to evaluate and compare the marginal sealing ability of Conseal F and Embrace Wet Bond.
AIM OF THE STUDY:
The present study was carried out to evaluate and compare the marginal sealing ability of two commercially available pit and fissure sealants using dye penetration method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
A total of 50 human premolar teeth were used in this invitro study and were divided into two groups. Group I included 25 teeth for application of Conseal F sealant and Group II included 25 teeth for application of Embrace Wet Bond sealant. Samples were stored in artificial saliva for 72 hours before thermocycling. The samples were immersed in 1% methylene blue solution for 24 hours, rinsed to remove excess dye and sectioned.
The sectioned samples were examined under an Optical Stereomicroscope and compared in terms of the extent of microleakage based on the amount of dye penetration between the sealant and tooth substance interface. The dye penetration scores in both the groups was statistically analyzed using Chi square test and Mann Whitney Test. A P- value < 0. 05 was considered to be statistically significant.
RESULTS:
It was seen that in Group I, 9 samples (36%) had no dye penetration (Grade 0) while in Group II, 6 samples (24%) demonstrated Grade 0 penetration. Group II had the most extensive dye penetration (Grade 3) in 8 of 25 samples (32%) (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION:
On comparison of the microleakage scores of the groups, a statistically significant difference was found between the two groups; indicating a better performance of Conseal F as compared to Embrace wet bond
