Stability of two resin combinations used as sealants against toothbrush abrasion and acid challenge in vitro

Resin infiltrant protects deproteinized dentin against erosive and abrasive wear

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the anti-erosive/abrasive effect of resin infiltration of previous deproteinized dentin.

Materials and Methods

Dentin slabs were randomly assigned to 3 groups (n = 15): Control (no deproteinization; no resin infiltrant applied), RI (no deproteinization; resin infiltrant applied), and DRI (deproteinization; resin infiltrant applied). After undergoing the assigned treatment, all slabs were subjected to an in vitro cycling model for 5 days. The specimens were immersed in citric acid (0.05 M, pH = 3.75; 60 seconds; 3 times/day) and brushed (150 strokes). Between the challenges, the specimens were exposed to a remineralizing solution (60 minutes). The morphological alterations were analyzed by mechanical profilometry (µm) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were submitted to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey tests (p < 0.05).

Results

Control and RI groups presented mineral wear and did not significantly differ from each other (p = 0.063). DRI maintained a protective layer preserving the dentin (p < 0.001). After erosive/abrasive cycles, it was observed that in group RI, only 25% of the slabs partially evidenced the presence of the infiltrating, while, in the DRI group, 80% of the slabs presented the treated surface entirely covered by a resin-component layer protecting the dentin surface as observed in SEM images.

Conclusions

The removal of the organic content allows the resin infiltrant to efficiently protect the dentin surface against erosive/abrasive lesions.

Resin-Based Materials Protect Against Erosion/Abrasion-a Prolonged In Situ Study

While patient compliance is key to preventive measures related to dental erosion, the application of resin-based materials could serve as an additional treatment to inhibit erosion progression. This in situ study evaluated the effect of applying resin-based materials, including resin infiltrant, on previously eroded enamel subjected to prolonged erosive and abrasive challenges. The factors under study were types of treatment (infiltrant [Icon], sealant [Helioseal Clear], adhesive [Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus], and control [no treatment]); wear conditions (erosion [ERO] and erosion + abrasion [ERO + ABR]) and challenge time (5 and 20 days) in a single-phase study. The blocks were prepared from bovine enamel, eroded (0.01 M HCl, pH 2.3 for 30 seconds) and randomized among treatments, wear conditions, and volunteers. The application of resin-based materials followed the manufacturers' recommendations. Twenty-one volunteers wore the palatal intraoral device, in which one row corresponded to ERO and the other to ERO + ABR. In each row, all treatments were represented (2 blocks per treatment). For 20 days, the erosive challenge was performed 4 times/day (immersion in 0.01 M HCl, pH 2.3, for 2 minutes) for the ERO condition. For the ERO + ABR condition, two of the erosive challenges were followed by abrasion for 15 seconds with fluoride dentifrice slurry. Enamel and/or material loss was measured using profilometry (initial, after treatment, and after the end of the fifth and 20th days of in situ erosive challenge) and analyzed by ANOVA models and Tukey's test (α=0.05). The results showed that the application of resin-based materials did not cause superficial enamel loss. The infiltrant group showed a thicker layer of material above the enamel compared with the other materials (p=0.001). After the erosive challenge, there was no difference between the conditions ERO and ERO + ABR (p=0.869). All materials protected the enamel against erosion progression compared with the control group (p=0.001). Based on these results, we conclude that the application of resin-based materials results in protection of previously eroded enamel subjected to in situ erosive and abrasive challenge for 20 days.

Effectiveness of resin-based materials against erosive and abrasive enamel wear

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of resin-based materials against erosive enamel wear under erosive and abrasive challenges by orange juice and tooth brushing.

METHODS

Fifty enamel specimens from third molars were assigned to five groups: ICON resin infiltration with no etching (ICON-NE), ICON resin infiltration with 15 % HCl etching (ICON-AE), Seal & Protect sealant (S&P), Tetric EvoFlow (TEF), and control. Erosive lesions were first created on enamel, then treated with resin-based materials. Erosive and abrasive challenges by orange juice and tooth brushing were repeated after treatments. Erosive wear of the treated areas was measured with 3D scanning microscopy, and data were analyzed using ANOVA and paired t tests.

RESULTS

Treatments with ICON, S&P, and TEF created a protective material coating of 4.5 ± 1.9 μm, 44.3 ± 8.1 μm, and 84.6 ± 15.7 μm in thickness on the lesion surfaces, respectively. After 15 cycles of erosive and abrasive challenges, enamel or material losses were 21.9 ± 2.3 μm for control, 24.5 ± 4.0 μm for ICON-NE, 24.6 ± 7.4 μm for ICON-AE, 11.2 ± 4.1 μm for S&P, and 3.9 ± 1.9 μm for TEF, respectively. The protective coatings were completely lost in the ICON infiltration groups but remained intact in both the S&P and TEF groups after erosive and abrasive challenges.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to a resin sealant and a flowable composite, ICON infiltration resin was not effective in protecting enamel surfaces from erosive and abrasive wear.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Sealant and flowable composite resin may create protective coatings on eroded enamel surfaces and prevent further tissue loss.

Protective effects of resin sealant and flowable composite coatings against erosive and abrasive wear of dental hard tissues

OBJECTIVES

To test the effectiveness of sealant and flowable composite coating on eroded enamel, dentin and cementum under erosive/abrasive challenges in vitro.

METHODS

A total of 108 tissue sections (36 each for enamel, dentin and cementum) from third molars were assigned to three groups: Seal & Protect sealant (S&P), Tetric EvoFlow composite (TEF) and control. Erosive/abrasive lesions were created on each specimen by citric acid and brushing with toothpaste. S&P and TEF were applied to the lesions and subjected to erosive/abrasive cycling included 24 cycles of immersion in citric acid (pH 3.6) for 60min, followed by remineralization for 120min and brushing with toothpastes for 600 strokes at 150g. Erosive wear of materials or dental tissues were measured with 3D scanning microscopy and data were analyzed using ANOVA.

RESULTS

Treatments with S&P and TEF created a protective material coating of 42.7±17.8μm and 150.8±9.9μm in thickness, respectively. After 24 cycles of erosive/abrasive challenges, tissue losses were -346.9±37.3μm for enamel, -166.5±26.3μm for dentin and -164.7±18.2μm for cementum in untreated controls, as compared to material losses of -24.4±3.3μm for S&P, and -10.8±4.4μm for TEF, respectively. Both S&P and TEF were effective in protecting enamel, dentin and cementum against erosive tooth wear (p<0.01). S&P exhibited faster wear than TEF (p<0.01) and showed spotted peeling in a third of the specimens. TEF remained intact on all three types of dental tissues at the end of the 24 cycles of erosive/abrasive challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

A thin coating of flowable composite resin 150μm in thickness may provide long-term protection against erosive/abrasive tooth wear. Resin sealant may provide adequate protection for dental hard tissues in short-term and may require repeated applications if long-term protection is desired.