Home Subscription Services
 
 
Loading
NEW
Sign Up to Receive Quintessence Updates by Email
 

 
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
JAD Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTubeRSS
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: JAD

 

The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

Edited by Jean-François Roulet

ISSN (print) 1461-5185 • ISSN (online) 1757-9988

Publication:

November/December 2006
Volume 8 , Issue 6

Pages: 375-380
Back
Share Abstract:

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

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 x 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: sealant, aprismatic enamel, bovine enamel, double interface, microtensile bond strength

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
  © 2013 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog