Microleakage and wear resistance of Beautisealant and Clinpro dental sealants: An in-vitro study | ||
| Ain Shams Dental Journal | ||
| Volume 35, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 314-323 PDF (1.23 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original articles | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/asdj.2024.290316.1286 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Omnia Bebers* 1; Mariem Wassel2; Mohamed Nasser Anwar3; Ola Mohamed Abd El Geleel4 | ||
| 1Pediatric Dentistry & Dental Public Health Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt | ||
| 2Pediatric dentistry and Dental public health department, faculty of dentistry Ain shams university | ||
| 3Operative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt | ||
| 4pediatric dentistry and dental public health dept, faculty of dentistry ain shams university | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Aim: To compare two distinct types of pit and fissure sealants, namely the Giomer-based Beautisealant sealant and the Resin-based ClinproTM sealant, regarding their microleakage and wear resistance. Materials and methods: The study comprised of 28 teeth collected from the department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, Ain Shams University. They were divided into two equal groups. One group received the Giomer based fissure sealant Beautisealant and the other group received the Resin based sealant ClinproTM. Thermocycling (500 times/5– 55 ◦C) followed by dye penetration test were done. Specimens were then buccolingually sectioned, examined under a stereomicroscope followed by assessment of microleakage. For wear resistance testing a total of 16 disk specimens were prepared, eight disks for each material. Thermocycling (500 times/5– 55 ◦C) and chewing simulator (75,000 times/49 N) were applied as the aging procedures. Scans were made before and after aging procedures. Wear resistance was quantitively measured by using the Geomagic software to superimpose specimen scans. Mann-Whitney U test showed statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of microleakage (p<0.001). Wear data were normally distributed and analyzed using independent t-test. Results: Beautisealant specimens had significantly higher microleakage scores than ClinproTM (p<0.001). However, ClinproTM (251.90±65.09) (µm) had a significantly higher wear value than Beautisealant (70.44±21.01) (µm) (p<0.001). Conclusions: Resin-based sealants seem to provide a better seal at the tooth-sealant interface. However, Giomer-based sealants seem to have better mechanical performance. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Keywords: Giomer; chewing simulator; Self-etch; Etch and rinse | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 298 PDF Download: 167 |
||
