International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE S1 ( Supplement, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Microleakage Assessment of Two Different Pit and Fissure Sealants: A Comparative Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy Study

Jayashri Prabakar, Meignana A Indiran, Pradeep Kumar, Srisakthi Dooraikannan, Ganesh Jeevanandan

Keywords : Confocal laser microscope, Microleakage, Pit and fissure sealant

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1862

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-00-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction: Pit and fissures of permanent dentition are considered to be highly vulnerable to the adhesion of cariogenic microorganisms and consequently result in caries formation. The main problem associated with sealant failure will be microleakage. Therefore, sealants can be considered to be an effective preventive procedure for dental caries, only if it strongly bonds to the tooth, and protect the pit and fissures from the oral bacterial environment. Aim and objective: To compare and assess the microleakage of two different pit and fissure sealants on permanent molars. Materials and methods: A total of 20 extracted third molars were randomly divided into two groups where group I is conventional sealant and group II is hydrophilic sealant. Occlusal surfaces of permanent molars were treated with 37% orthophosphoric acid before sealant placement. Tooth samples were subjected to 0.1% rhodamine dye immersion, thermocycling, and tooth samples were sectioned and evaluated under a confocal laser microscope for dye penetration. A non-parametric test (Mann–Whitney U) was performed to compare the mean microleakage score difference between the groups. Results: Group II (hydrophilic sealant) showed a minimum level of the microleakage score when compared to group I (conventional sealant) and was found to be statistically significant using the Mann-Whitney U test with a p value <0.05. Conclusion: The less the microleakage, the better will be the retention of the sealant for a longer duration and cariostatic action.


PDF Share
  1. Young DA, Nový BB, Zeller GG, et al. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. The American Dental Association Caries Classification System for clinical practice: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. JADA 2015;146(2):79–86.
  2. Morales E, Martínez A, Hernández J, et al. Evaluation of marginal seal and microleakage of a sealant modified with silver nanoparticles in primary molars: In vitro study,. Int J Dental SC 2014;16:107–113.
  3. Kaste LM, Selwitz RH, Oldakowski RJ, et al. Coronal caries in the primary and permanent dentition of children and adolescents 1-17 years of age: United States, 1988-1991. J Dent Res 1996;75(2_suppl):631–641. DOI: 10.1177/002203459607502S03.
  4. Meneghim MC, Saliba NA, Pereira AC. Importance of the first permanent molars in the determination of DMFT index. J Brasileiro de Odontopediatria - Odontologia do Bebê 1999;2(5):37–41.
  5. Wright JT, Crall JJ, Fontana M, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and fissure sealants - report of the American Dental Association and the American Academy of pediatric. JADA 2016;147(8):672–682. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.06.001.
  6. Ultradent Products, Inc. Product guide for ultraseal XT hydro 2013.
  7. Strassler HE, Grebosky M, Porter J, et al. Success with pit and fissure sealants. Dent Today 2005;24:126–130.
  8. Markovic D, Petrovic B, Peric T, et al. Microleakage, adaptation ability and clinical efficacy of two fluoride releasing fissure sealants. Vojnosanit Pregl 2012;69(4):320–325. DOI: 10.2298/VSP1204320M.
  9. Alani AH, Toh CG. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent 1997;22(4):173–185.
  10. Kane B, Karren J, Garcia-Godoy C, et al. Sealant adaptation and penetration into occlusal fissures. Am J Dent 2009;22(2):89–91.
  11. Al-Jobair A. Scanning electron microscope analysis of sealant penetration and adaptationin contaminated fissures. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2013;31(3):169–174. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.117970.
  12. Ovrebo RC, Raadal M. Microleakage in fissures sealed with resin or glass ionomer cement. Scand J Dent Res 1990;98:66–69.
  13. Hicks J, Flaitz CM. Pit and fissure sealants and conservative adhesive restoration: Scientific and clinical rationale. In: Pinkham JR, Cassamassimo PS, McTigue DJ, et al., ed. Pediatric dentistry infancy through adolescence. 4th ed., New Delhi: Saunders an imprint of Elsevier; 2005. pp. 520–576.
  14. Borsatto MC, Giuntini JL, Contente MMMG, et al. Self-etch bonding agent beneath sealant: bond strength for laser-irradiated enamel. Eur J Dent 2013;7(03):289–295. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.115412.
  15. Dhillon JK, Pathak A. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of three pit and fissure sealants using conventional etch or self-etching primer. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2012;30(4):288–292. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.108922.
  16. Pushpalatha HM, Ravichandra KS, Srikanth K, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of different pit and fissure sealants in primary and ermanent teeth - an in-vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(2):84–89.
  17. Feldens EG, Felden CA, De Araujo FB, et al. Invasive pit and fissure in primary molars: a SEM study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1994;18:187–190.
  18. Nikiforuk G. Occlusal sealants. In: Nikiforuk G, ed. Understanding dental caries, etiology and mechanism, basic and clinical aspects. Newyork: Karger; 1985. pp. 145–173.
  19. Cueto El, Buonocore MG. Sealing of pits and fissures with an adhesive resin: its use in caries prevention. J Am Dent Assoc 1967;75(1):121–128.
  20. Arrow P, Riordan PJ. Retention and caries preventive effects of a GIC and a resin-based fissure sealant. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1995;23(5):282–285. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1995.tb00249.x.
  21. Abou El-Yazeed M, Abou-Zeid W, Zaazou M. Effect of different enamel pretreatment techniques for pit and fissure sealing in primary and permanent teeth. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 1991;7:895–899.
  22. Roberson T, Heymann HO, Swift EJ. Sturdevant's Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 5th ed., Philadelphia: Mosby; 2006. pp. 185–266.
  23. Pardi V, Sinhoreti MAC, Pereira AC, et al. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of different materials used as pit-and-fissure sealants. Braz Dent J 2006;17(1):49–52. DOI: 10.1590/S0103-64402006000100011.
  24. Mahadevan G, Shobha T. Comparative evaluation of the marginal sealing ability of Fuji VII® and Concise® as pit and fissure sealants. J Contempor Dent Pract 2007;8(4):10–18. DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-8-4-10.
  25. Ashwin R, Arathi R. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between Fuji-VII glass ionomer cement and light-cured unfilled resin: a combined in vivo in vitro study. J Indian SocPedodPrev Dent 2007;25:86–87.
  26. Hansen SR, Montgomery S. Effect of restoration thickness on the sealing ability of TERM. J Endod 1993;19(9):448–452. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80531-5.
  27. Wahab FK, Shaini FJ, Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite class V restorations in vitro. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(2):168–174. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00300-7.
  28. Borsatto MC, Corona SA, Alves AG, et al. Influence of salivary contamination on marginal microleakage of pit and fissure sealants. Am J Dent 2004;17:365–367.
  29. Al-Jobair A. In vitro evaluation of microleakage in contaminated fissures sealed with GC Fuji triage glass ionomer cement. Dental Sci 2010;22(1):25–32.
  30. Rirattanapong P, Vongsavan K, Surarit R. Microleakage of two fluoride-releasing sealants when applied following saliva contamination. South East Asian J Trop Med Public Health 2013;44(5):931–934.
  31. Hormati AA, Fuller JL, Denehy GE. Effects of contamination and mechanical disturbance on the quality of acid-etched enamel. J Am Dent Assoc 1980;100(1):34–38. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1980.0033.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.