Minimizing patients' exposure to uncured components in a dental sealant

Frederick Rueggeberg, M. Dlugokinski, J. W. Ergle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. The authors conducted research to examine the effectiveness of six surface treatments in reducing the oxygen-inhibited layer of a commercially available, freshly polymerized, light-cured unfilled dental sealant. Methods. Surface treatments of a light-cured sealant (Delton Light Curing Pit & Fissure Sealant, Dentsply Ash) included no treatment (the control treatment), a 20-second exposure to an air/water syringe spray, 20 seconds' manual application of a wet or dry cotton roll, 20 seconds' manual application of pumice with a cotton pellet, and 20 seconds' application of a water/pumice slurry using a prophy cup on a slow-speed handpiece. The authors used high-pressure liquid chromatography to analyze the amount of monomers - bisphenol A glycidyl dimethacrylate, or Bis-GMA; triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, or TEGDMA; and bisphenol A dimethacrylate, or Bis-DMA - remaining after each treatment. Results. A one-way analysis of variance indicated that use of only an air/water spray removed the least (P = .0001) amount of all monomers (only 68.3 percent of the control value). Application of wet or dry cotton reduced equivalent amounts of monomers (86.1 to 88.9 percent of the control value), and the amount of monomer remaining was less than that for the air/water syringe treatment (P = .0001). The use of pumice on either a cotton ball or in a prophy cup achieved the greatest reduction (P = .0001) in total amount of residual monomer (92.9 to 95.3 percent of the control value). Conclusions. Treatment that used pumice eliminated the greatest amount (from 93 percent to 95 percent of the untreated control values) of any type of residual monomer. A slurry of pumice is significantly more effective in removing the oxygeninhibited layer from freshly cured sealants than either an air/water spray or wet or dry cotton alone. Clinical Implications. Clinicians can most effectively reduce patients' exposure to the uncured components in the oxygen-inhibited layer of sealants by using a mild abrasive, such as pumice, either on a cotton applicator or in a prophy cup.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1751-1757
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American Dental Association
Volume130
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1999

Fingerprint

Pit and Fissure Sealants
Air
Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate
Water
Syringes
Light
Therapeutics
Oxygen
Water Purification
pumice
Analysis of Variance
High Pressure Liquid Chromatography
Research
2,2-di(4-methacryloxyphenyl)propane

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Minimizing patients' exposure to uncured components in a dental sealant. / Rueggeberg, Frederick; Dlugokinski, M.; Ergle, J. W.

In: Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 130, No. 12, 01.01.1999, p. 1751-1757.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9d1bf56a88ba48bd8acc3f1cced678cf,
title = "Minimizing patients' exposure to uncured components in a dental sealant",
abstract = "Background. The authors conducted research to examine the effectiveness of six surface treatments in reducing the oxygen-inhibited layer of a commercially available, freshly polymerized, light-cured unfilled dental sealant. Methods. Surface treatments of a light-cured sealant (Delton Light Curing Pit & Fissure Sealant, Dentsply Ash) included no treatment (the control treatment), a 20-second exposure to an air/water syringe spray, 20 seconds' manual application of a wet or dry cotton roll, 20 seconds' manual application of pumice with a cotton pellet, and 20 seconds' application of a water/pumice slurry using a prophy cup on a slow-speed handpiece. The authors used high-pressure liquid chromatography to analyze the amount of monomers - bisphenol A glycidyl dimethacrylate, or Bis-GMA; triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, or TEGDMA; and bisphenol A dimethacrylate, or Bis-DMA - remaining after each treatment. Results. A one-way analysis of variance indicated that use of only an air/water spray removed the least (P = .0001) amount of all monomers (only 68.3 percent of the control value). Application of wet or dry cotton reduced equivalent amounts of monomers (86.1 to 88.9 percent of the control value), and the amount of monomer remaining was less than that for the air/water syringe treatment (P = .0001). The use of pumice on either a cotton ball or in a prophy cup achieved the greatest reduction (P = .0001) in total amount of residual monomer (92.9 to 95.3 percent of the control value). Conclusions. Treatment that used pumice eliminated the greatest amount (from 93 percent to 95 percent of the untreated control values) of any type of residual monomer. A slurry of pumice is significantly more effective in removing the oxygeninhibited layer from freshly cured sealants than either an air/water spray or wet or dry cotton alone. Clinical Implications. Clinicians can most effectively reduce patients' exposure to the uncured components in the oxygen-inhibited layer of sealants by using a mild abrasive, such as pumice, either on a cotton applicator or in a prophy cup.",
author = "Frederick Rueggeberg and M. Dlugokinski and Ergle, {J. W.}",
year = "1999",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0132",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "130",
pages = "1751--1757",
journal = "Journal of the American Dental Association",
issn = "0002-8177",
publisher = "American Dental Association",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimizing patients' exposure to uncured components in a dental sealant

AU - Rueggeberg, Frederick

AU - Dlugokinski, M.

AU - Ergle, J. W.

PY - 1999/1/1

Y1 - 1999/1/1

N2 - Background. The authors conducted research to examine the effectiveness of six surface treatments in reducing the oxygen-inhibited layer of a commercially available, freshly polymerized, light-cured unfilled dental sealant. Methods. Surface treatments of a light-cured sealant (Delton Light Curing Pit & Fissure Sealant, Dentsply Ash) included no treatment (the control treatment), a 20-second exposure to an air/water syringe spray, 20 seconds' manual application of a wet or dry cotton roll, 20 seconds' manual application of pumice with a cotton pellet, and 20 seconds' application of a water/pumice slurry using a prophy cup on a slow-speed handpiece. The authors used high-pressure liquid chromatography to analyze the amount of monomers - bisphenol A glycidyl dimethacrylate, or Bis-GMA; triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, or TEGDMA; and bisphenol A dimethacrylate, or Bis-DMA - remaining after each treatment. Results. A one-way analysis of variance indicated that use of only an air/water spray removed the least (P = .0001) amount of all monomers (only 68.3 percent of the control value). Application of wet or dry cotton reduced equivalent amounts of monomers (86.1 to 88.9 percent of the control value), and the amount of monomer remaining was less than that for the air/water syringe treatment (P = .0001). The use of pumice on either a cotton ball or in a prophy cup achieved the greatest reduction (P = .0001) in total amount of residual monomer (92.9 to 95.3 percent of the control value). Conclusions. Treatment that used pumice eliminated the greatest amount (from 93 percent to 95 percent of the untreated control values) of any type of residual monomer. A slurry of pumice is significantly more effective in removing the oxygeninhibited layer from freshly cured sealants than either an air/water spray or wet or dry cotton alone. Clinical Implications. Clinicians can most effectively reduce patients' exposure to the uncured components in the oxygen-inhibited layer of sealants by using a mild abrasive, such as pumice, either on a cotton applicator or in a prophy cup.

AB - Background. The authors conducted research to examine the effectiveness of six surface treatments in reducing the oxygen-inhibited layer of a commercially available, freshly polymerized, light-cured unfilled dental sealant. Methods. Surface treatments of a light-cured sealant (Delton Light Curing Pit & Fissure Sealant, Dentsply Ash) included no treatment (the control treatment), a 20-second exposure to an air/water syringe spray, 20 seconds' manual application of a wet or dry cotton roll, 20 seconds' manual application of pumice with a cotton pellet, and 20 seconds' application of a water/pumice slurry using a prophy cup on a slow-speed handpiece. The authors used high-pressure liquid chromatography to analyze the amount of monomers - bisphenol A glycidyl dimethacrylate, or Bis-GMA; triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, or TEGDMA; and bisphenol A dimethacrylate, or Bis-DMA - remaining after each treatment. Results. A one-way analysis of variance indicated that use of only an air/water spray removed the least (P = .0001) amount of all monomers (only 68.3 percent of the control value). Application of wet or dry cotton reduced equivalent amounts of monomers (86.1 to 88.9 percent of the control value), and the amount of monomer remaining was less than that for the air/water syringe treatment (P = .0001). The use of pumice on either a cotton ball or in a prophy cup achieved the greatest reduction (P = .0001) in total amount of residual monomer (92.9 to 95.3 percent of the control value). Conclusions. Treatment that used pumice eliminated the greatest amount (from 93 percent to 95 percent of the untreated control values) of any type of residual monomer. A slurry of pumice is significantly more effective in removing the oxygeninhibited layer from freshly cured sealants than either an air/water spray or wet or dry cotton alone. Clinical Implications. Clinicians can most effectively reduce patients' exposure to the uncured components in the oxygen-inhibited layer of sealants by using a mild abrasive, such as pumice, either on a cotton applicator or in a prophy cup.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033255901&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033255901&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0132

DO - 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0132

M3 - Article

VL - 130

SP - 1751

EP - 1757

JO - Journal of the American Dental Association

JF - Journal of the American Dental Association

SN - 0002-8177

IS - 12

ER -