Sealing Ability of Flowable Resin Composites Fissure Sealants | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 1, Volume 67, Issue 2 - Serial Number 1, April 2021, Page 917-923 PDF (1011.07 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2021.55540.1433 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Yasser El-Bouhi 1; Wahdan Elkwatehy  2
| ||||
| 1Consultant, Alexandria Dental Research Center, Semouha, Alexandria, Egypt.- Assistant Professor of Conservative and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Umm Al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia. | ||||
| 2Assistant professor of Dental Public Health and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Egypt and College of Dentistry, Umm Al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background/Aim: Prevention of caries initiation is a common concern for both clinicians and patients, among the effective ways of dental caries prevention is pits and fissures sealing. The current in vitro study was performed to assess the sealing ability and microleakage of three commercial flowable composites used for fissure sealing. Materials and Methods: The microleakage and sealing ability of three flowable resin composites (Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative, SureFil SDR Flow and Vertise Flow) were evaluated and compared with the sealing ability of conventional composite resin fissure sealant (Helioseal F). 120 extracted caries free premolars were collected and equally distributed into four groups (n=30). Fissure sealant flowable composites were applied according to manufacturer's instruction. Samples were subjected to thermocycling, then immersed in a methylene blue dye for 48 hours. After that, each tooth was sectioned in to three sections and examined by a stereomicroscope with a X15 magnification. Photographs were captured for all sections to show and scored for microleakage as 0, 1, 2 or 3. The collected data was organized and analyzed by Chi-Square test, p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were statistically significant differences between the three flowable composite vs Helioseal (p=0.000). There were statistically significant differences between Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative vs SureFil SDR Flow and Vertise Flow. Also, there was significant difference between SureFil SDR Flow vs Vertise Flow (p= 0.000 for all comparisons). Conclusions: The three tested flowable composite showed an acceptable sealing ability. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Sealant; Microleakage; Self-adhesive Flowable sealant; Stereomicroscope; SureFil SDR Flow | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 371 PDF Download: 419 |
||||
