Noninvasive pit and fissure sealing: Microtensile bond strength to intact bovine enamel of different pit and fissure sealants in a simplified fissure model

Federica Papacchini, Álvaro H. Cury, Cecilia Goracci, Nicoletta Chieffi, Franklin R. Tay, Antonella Polimeni, Marco Ferrari

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To measure the microtensile bond strength of different pit and fissure sealants in a simplified fissure model. Materials and Methods: Twenty extracted bovine mandibular permanent incisors were randomly divided into 4 groups for treatment: G1: 35% phosphoric acid/Clinpro Sealant; G2: 35% phosphoric acid/Delton; G3: Non-Rinse Conditioner/Dyract Seal; G4: 20% polyacrylic acid/Fuji IILC. Each tooth was sectioned into 6 pieces (4 × 6 mm) of buccal enamel. SEM examination was used to confirm the presence of aprismatic enamel on each tooth. Using a spacer, two pieces of etched enamel were secured to a glass slide at a mean distance of 0.6 ± 0.1 mm. The space between enamel substrates was then etched/conditioned and sealed with different materials according to the tested groups. By serially cutting each double-bonded sample, multiple beam-shaped specimens about 0.8mm2 in cross section were obtained and tested in tension (0.5 mm/min) until failure occurred at either one of the two stressed interfaces. Failure modes were classified by stereomicroscopy. Results: G1 and G2 showed statistically higher bond strengths than G3 and G4. G4 demonstrated the significantly lowest bond strength. Failures were mostly adhesive in G1, G2, G3, and mainly cohesive/mixed in G4. Conclusion: According to this model, resin-based materials (Clinpro Sealant, Delton) showed better microtensile bond strength than compomer (Dyract Seal) or resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji IILC).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)375-380
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Adhesive Dentistry
Volume8
Issue number6
StatePublished - Dec 1 2006

Fingerprint

Pit and Fissure Sealants
Dental Enamel
Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate
carbopol 940
Tooth
Cheek
Incisor
Adhesives
Glass
Clinpro Sealant
phosphoric acid
dyract seal

Keywords

  • Aprismatic enamel
  • Bovine enamel
  • Double interface
  • Microtensile bond strength
  • Sealant

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthodontics
  • Oral Surgery
  • Periodontics

Cite this

Noninvasive pit and fissure sealing : Microtensile bond strength to intact bovine enamel of different pit and fissure sealants in a simplified fissure model. / Papacchini, Federica; Cury, Álvaro H.; Goracci, Cecilia; Chieffi, Nicoletta; Tay, Franklin R.; Polimeni, Antonella; Ferrari, Marco.

In: Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, Vol. 8, No. 6, 01.12.2006, p. 375-380.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Papacchini, Federica ; Cury, Álvaro H. ; Goracci, Cecilia ; Chieffi, Nicoletta ; Tay, Franklin R. ; Polimeni, Antonella ; Ferrari, Marco. / Noninvasive pit and fissure sealing : Microtensile bond strength to intact bovine enamel of different pit and fissure sealants in a simplified fissure model. In: Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2006 ; Vol. 8, No. 6. pp. 375-380.
@article{b1b3f3e319a14e9f905b326e4f1feb8e,
title = "Noninvasive pit and fissure sealing: Microtensile bond strength to intact bovine enamel of different pit and fissure sealants in a simplified fissure model",
abstract = "Purpose: To measure the microtensile bond strength of different pit and fissure sealants in a simplified fissure model. Materials and Methods: Twenty extracted bovine mandibular permanent incisors were randomly divided into 4 groups for treatment: G1: 35{\%} phosphoric acid/Clinpro Sealant; G2: 35{\%} phosphoric acid/Delton; G3: Non-Rinse Conditioner/Dyract Seal; G4: 20{\%} polyacrylic acid/Fuji IILC. Each tooth was sectioned into 6 pieces (4 × 6 mm) of buccal enamel. SEM examination was used to confirm the presence of aprismatic enamel on each tooth. Using a spacer, two pieces of etched enamel were secured to a glass slide at a mean distance of 0.6 ± 0.1 mm. The space between enamel substrates was then etched/conditioned and sealed with different materials according to the tested groups. By serially cutting each double-bonded sample, multiple beam-shaped specimens about 0.8mm2 in cross section were obtained and tested in tension (0.5 mm/min) until failure occurred at either one of the two stressed interfaces. Failure modes were classified by stereomicroscopy. Results: G1 and G2 showed statistically higher bond strengths than G3 and G4. G4 demonstrated the significantly lowest bond strength. Failures were mostly adhesive in G1, G2, G3, and mainly cohesive/mixed in G4. Conclusion: According to this model, resin-based materials (Clinpro Sealant, Delton) showed better microtensile bond strength than compomer (Dyract Seal) or resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji IILC).",
keywords = "Aprismatic enamel, Bovine enamel, Double interface, Microtensile bond strength, Sealant",
author = "Federica Papacchini and Cury, {{\'A}lvaro H.} and Cecilia Goracci and Nicoletta Chieffi and Tay, {Franklin R.} and Antonella Polimeni and Marco Ferrari",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "375--380",
journal = "The journal of adhesive dentistry",
issn = "1461-5185",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Noninvasive pit and fissure sealing

T2 - Microtensile bond strength to intact bovine enamel of different pit and fissure sealants in a simplified fissure model

AU - Papacchini, Federica

AU - Cury, Álvaro H.

AU - Goracci, Cecilia

AU - Chieffi, Nicoletta

AU - Tay, Franklin R.

AU - Polimeni, Antonella

AU - Ferrari, Marco

PY - 2006/12/1

Y1 - 2006/12/1

N2 - Purpose: To measure the microtensile bond strength of different pit and fissure sealants in a simplified fissure model. Materials and Methods: Twenty extracted bovine mandibular permanent incisors were randomly divided into 4 groups for treatment: G1: 35% phosphoric acid/Clinpro Sealant; G2: 35% phosphoric acid/Delton; G3: Non-Rinse Conditioner/Dyract Seal; G4: 20% polyacrylic acid/Fuji IILC. Each tooth was sectioned into 6 pieces (4 × 6 mm) of buccal enamel. SEM examination was used to confirm the presence of aprismatic enamel on each tooth. Using a spacer, two pieces of etched enamel were secured to a glass slide at a mean distance of 0.6 ± 0.1 mm. The space between enamel substrates was then etched/conditioned and sealed with different materials according to the tested groups. By serially cutting each double-bonded sample, multiple beam-shaped specimens about 0.8mm2 in cross section were obtained and tested in tension (0.5 mm/min) until failure occurred at either one of the two stressed interfaces. Failure modes were classified by stereomicroscopy. Results: G1 and G2 showed statistically higher bond strengths than G3 and G4. G4 demonstrated the significantly lowest bond strength. Failures were mostly adhesive in G1, G2, G3, and mainly cohesive/mixed in G4. Conclusion: According to this model, resin-based materials (Clinpro Sealant, Delton) showed better microtensile bond strength than compomer (Dyract Seal) or resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji IILC).

AB - Purpose: To measure the microtensile bond strength of different pit and fissure sealants in a simplified fissure model. Materials and Methods: Twenty extracted bovine mandibular permanent incisors were randomly divided into 4 groups for treatment: G1: 35% phosphoric acid/Clinpro Sealant; G2: 35% phosphoric acid/Delton; G3: Non-Rinse Conditioner/Dyract Seal; G4: 20% polyacrylic acid/Fuji IILC. Each tooth was sectioned into 6 pieces (4 × 6 mm) of buccal enamel. SEM examination was used to confirm the presence of aprismatic enamel on each tooth. Using a spacer, two pieces of etched enamel were secured to a glass slide at a mean distance of 0.6 ± 0.1 mm. The space between enamel substrates was then etched/conditioned and sealed with different materials according to the tested groups. By serially cutting each double-bonded sample, multiple beam-shaped specimens about 0.8mm2 in cross section were obtained and tested in tension (0.5 mm/min) until failure occurred at either one of the two stressed interfaces. Failure modes were classified by stereomicroscopy. Results: G1 and G2 showed statistically higher bond strengths than G3 and G4. G4 demonstrated the significantly lowest bond strength. Failures were mostly adhesive in G1, G2, G3, and mainly cohesive/mixed in G4. Conclusion: According to this model, resin-based materials (Clinpro Sealant, Delton) showed better microtensile bond strength than compomer (Dyract Seal) or resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji IILC).

KW - Aprismatic enamel

KW - Bovine enamel

KW - Double interface

KW - Microtensile bond strength

KW - Sealant

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845936135&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845936135&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 17243594

AN - SCOPUS:33845936135

VL - 8

SP - 375

EP - 380

JO - The journal of adhesive dentistry

JF - The journal of adhesive dentistry

SN - 1461-5185

IS - 6

ER -