IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Different Enamel Surface Preparations on Sealant Bond Strength
Objectives: Pit and fissure sealants are often applied to teeth at high risk of decay. They provide effective preventive treatment as long as the sealant remains adhered to the tooth. Longevity of the dental sealant is influenced by the surface treatment of the tooth prior to sealant placement. This study compared shear bond strength of a resin sealant onto enamel prepared for the sealant application in two ways: using pumice (PreppiesTM, Whip Mix, Louisville, KY) in a prophy cup with a slow speed hand-piece; and using bioactive glass in a grit-blaster to etch the tooth surface.
Methods: Twenty-two bovine incisor sections were randomly assigned into two groups (n=11 each). Sections were mounted in epoxy cylinders and ground/polished with a Buehler Eco-Met 250 Polisher Grinder with 800 grit discs. The first group received standard polishing with non-fluoridated pumice in a prophy cup; the other group was treated by use of a Microetcher (Danville Materials, San Ramon, CA) to grit-blast the surface with 65% silica bioactive glass (BAG) particles with <17um particle size.
Samples were etched with 37% phosphoric acid, bonded with ExciTE®F (Ivoclar Vivadent), and topped with a Helioseal F® (Ivoclar Vivadent) cylinder using an Ultradent jig (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT). Adhesive and sealants were light-cured with a Valo Cordless broadband LED curing light at high power for 3x3 seconds. Samples underwent shear-bond strength testing with an Instron ElectroPuls E3000. Bond strength was compared using Student’s T-test with α=0.05. Mode of failure was also recorded.
Results: The average bond strength for the pumice-prophy group was 25.2±3.415 MPa, while the average bond strength for the bioactive glass group was 20.3±3.2 MPa. Mode of failure varied in both groups.
Conclusions: Both treatments provided a strong, similar bond strength. Further tests are underway to assess the durability of the bond between the tooth and sealant with time.
Methods: Twenty-two bovine incisor sections were randomly assigned into two groups (n=11 each). Sections were mounted in epoxy cylinders and ground/polished with a Buehler Eco-Met 250 Polisher Grinder with 800 grit discs. The first group received standard polishing with non-fluoridated pumice in a prophy cup; the other group was treated by use of a Microetcher (Danville Materials, San Ramon, CA) to grit-blast the surface with 65% silica bioactive glass (BAG) particles with <17um particle size.
Samples were etched with 37% phosphoric acid, bonded with ExciTE®F (Ivoclar Vivadent), and topped with a Helioseal F® (Ivoclar Vivadent) cylinder using an Ultradent jig (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT). Adhesive and sealants were light-cured with a Valo Cordless broadband LED curing light at high power for 3x3 seconds. Samples underwent shear-bond strength testing with an Instron ElectroPuls E3000. Bond strength was compared using Student’s T-test with α=0.05. Mode of failure was also recorded.
Results: The average bond strength for the pumice-prophy group was 25.2±3.415 MPa, while the average bond strength for the bioactive glass group was 20.3±3.2 MPa. Mode of failure varied in both groups.
Conclusions: Both treatments provided a strong, similar bond strength. Further tests are underway to assess the durability of the bond between the tooth and sealant with time.