Bonding agents in pit and fissure sealants: a review

An In vitro Comparative Analysis of the Shear Bond Value of Sixth, Seventh and Eight Generation Dentin Bonding Agents

Objective

This study evaluates the shear bond strength (SBS) of 6th, 7th, and 8th generation dentin bonding agents.

Materials and Methods

Thirty extracted premolars were divided into three groups of 10. Group A used a 6th generation bonding agent, Group B a 7th generation bonding agent, and Group C a 8th generation bonding agent. Each tooth was fixed in acrylic resin, sectioned to expose dentin, treated with the respective bonding agent, and built up with composite resin. SBS was assessed by universal testing machine.

Results

Highest shear bond value was illustrated by the 8th generation bonding agent, with subsequent values progressively lower for the 7th and 6th generation bonding agents.

Conclusion

The 8th generation bonding agents exhibit superior shear bond strength, suggesting enhanced dental restoration durability. Further clinical validation is recommended.

Effect of two different bonding agents on the microleakage used for fluoride releasing pit and fissure sealant

The evaluation of 5th and 7th generation bonding agents on the extent of micro leakage from sealant such as fluoride in forty extracted human premolar teeth is of interest to dentists. 40 extracted teeth satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomly divided into two groups. Group I utilized a bonding agent from the fifth generation, whereas Group II employed a bonding agent from the seventh generation, both treated with Helioseal F Plus sealant. Following a 24-hour period of cultivation at a temperature of 37°C and subjecting the sample to 100 cycles of temperature fluctuation varying in temperature from 5°C to 55°C, the samples were submerged in a 0.2% methylene blue dye mixture for duration of 24 hours and examined under a microscope. Result showed that fifth-generation agent mean microleakage was greater, but not statistically significant. The seventh-generation agent demonstrated minimal microleakage with simpler application.

Clinical Follow-up of a Fissure Sealant Placed Using Different Adhesive Protocols: A 24-month Split-mouth Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention rates of a fissure sealant placed using different adhesive protocols over 24 months. Twenty-four subjects with no restorations or caries received fissure sealants (Clinpro Sealant, 3M ESPE) placed using different adhesive protocols. A total of 292 sealants were placed as follows by two previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers (n=73): group I, acid-etch/without adhesive; group II, with a self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE); group III, with an etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE); group IV, with acid + self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond). Two other calibrated examiners independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at six-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = total retention, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. Pearson's χ² test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants for each evaluation period. At the end of 24 months, total retention rates were 57.5%, 27.4%, 84.9%, and 76.7% in the acid-etch, self-etch adhesive, etch-and-rinse adhesive, and acid + self-etch adhesive groups, respectively. Although there were no statistically significant differences between the retention rates among the adhesive protocols at 6 months ( p=0.684), significant differences were observed at the 12-, 18-, and 24-month evaluations. At 24 months, the lowest retention rates were observed in the self-etch group ( p<0.05). No caries development was observed in any of the groups. The retention rate of sealants placed using self-etch adhesive was poor compared with the other groups.

Adhesive systems under fissure sealants: yes or no?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The authors of this systematic review and meta-analysis had 2 aims: to evaluate fissure sealant retention with and without the use of an adhesive system and to compare fissure sealant retention using etch-and-rinse adhesive systems versus self-etching adhesive systems.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors conducted a literature search (all articles published through November 1, 2015) to identify studies for inclusion in this systematic review. They assessed the quality of the evidence provided using the modified Jadad scale and performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The authors considered 12 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. In addition, they used 5 of 9 studies related to the first part of the study and 3 of 4 studies related to the second part of the study that met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. In the analysis of the first part of the systematic review, the authors found that adhesive systems had a significant positive effect on fissure sealant (odds ratio, 3.294; 95% confidence interval, 1.292-8.401; P = .013). In the analysis of the second part of the systematic review, the authors found that etch-and-rinse adhesives were superior to self-etching adhesives in the fissure sealant procedure (odds ratio, 14.569; 95% confidence interval, 2.616-81.131; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The use of adhesive systems beneath fissure sealants can increase the retention of fissure sealants. Also, when adhesive systems are used with fissure sealants, etch-and-rinse systems are preferable.

Effects of sealant, viscosity, and bonding agents on microleakage of fissure sealants: An in vitro study

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of enamel or dentin bonding agent (DBA) and sealant viscosity on sealant microleakage.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty extracted human premolars were randomly divided into two equal groups (based on sealant viscosity) and each group was divided into three subgroups of 10 teeth. Group 1 (low viscosity sealant, Seal-Rite, Pulpdent, USA with 7.7% filler): Prophylaxis, enameloplasty, etching of occlusal surfaces with 38% of phosphoric acid gel, rinsing and drying, followed by (1) enamel bonding agent (EBA) (Margin Bond, Coltène/Whaledent AG) or (2) DBA (Excite, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein) or (3) no bonding (NB) prior to sealant application. In Group 2, similar procedures were performed except for applying a high viscosity sealant (Seal-Rite, Pulpdent, The USA with 34.4% filler). Specimens were thermocycled and then immersed in a 0.5% basic fuchsine solution for 24 h next, buccolingual slices of samples were scored under a stereomicroscope. The Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-tests were used for data analysis.

Results:

There was no significant difference between DBA, EBA, and NB subgroups in the microleakage scores in both groups. Low viscosity sealant had a lower microleakage than the high viscosity sealant in both DBA (P = 0.002) and NB (P = 0.041) subgroups.

Conclusion:

The results indicated that the use of low viscosity sealant reduced the microleakage of pit and fissure sealants. However, the use of a bonding agent before sealant placement didn’t affect the microleakage.

A randomized control clinical trial of fissure sealant retention: Self etch adhesive versus total etch adhesive

Context:

There are limited studies on comparison of Total etch (TE) and Self etch (SE) adhesive for placement of sealants.

Aims:

The aim of the study was to compare the retention of fissure sealants placed using TE adhesive to those sealants placed using SE (seventh generation) adhesive.

Settings and Design:

The study was conducted in the dental section, Aga Khan University Hospital. This study was a randomized single blinded trial with a split mouth design.

Materials and Methods:

The study included 37 patients, 101 teeth were included in both study groups. The intervention arm was treated with SE Adhesive (Adper Easy One, 3M ESPE, US). Control arm received TE adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE, US) before sealant application. The patients were followed after 6 months for assessment of sealant retention.

Statistical analysis used:

Interexaminer agreement for outcome assessment was assessed by Kappa Statistics and outcome in intervention group was assessed by McNemar's test.

Results:

Ninety-one pairs of molar (90%) were reevaluated for sealant retention. Complete retention was 56% in TE arm and 28% in SE arm with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.7.

Conclusions:

Sealants applied with TE adhesives show higher rate of complete sealant retention than SE adhesive.