• Users Online: 180
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 7-11

Evaluation of In situ Adaptability of two types of fissure sealants placed with or without enameloplasty


1 Department of Science of Dental Materials, Dow Dental College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan
2 Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan

Date of Submission17-Jan-2022
Date of Acceptance15-Oct-2022
Date of Web Publication31-Dec-2022

Correspondence Address:
Tabinda Nawaz Khan
Department of Science of Dental Materials, Dow Dental College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi
Pakistan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/dmr.dmr_5_22

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Context: Literature has no consensus over the utility of enameloplasty before fissure sealant placement. Aim: The objective of the study was to explore the effect of enameloplasty using a scanned electron microscope on the adaptability of resin-modified glass ionomer versus flowable resin-based sealants. Settings and Design: An in vitro, experimental study was done from July to November 2017 at the NED University and Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan. Materials and Methods: An in vitro experimental study was done, for which twenty extracted human molars and premolars were selected. They were divided into two groups on the basis of sealant type (resin-modified glass ionomer versus flowable resin-based sealant). The groups were further subdivided on the basis whether these were subjected to enameloplasty or not. All specimens were thermocycled, sectioned, dried, and gold sputtered before inspection under a scanning electron microscope (×50). Statistical Analysis Used: The adaptability of the sealant material in the tooth fissures was assessed on an ordinal scale. SPSS version 23.0 was used for data analysis. Mann–Whitney U-test and ordinal regression were applied at 0.05 level of significance. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between adaptability scores achieved with resin-modified glass ionomer-based sealant and flowable resin-based sealant (P = 0.96). Moreover, enameloplasty resulted in inferior adaptability of the two sealant materials (P = 0.02). Conclusions: Enameloplasty has shown to exert a negative influence over adaptation of the sealant material into the tooth fissure irrespective of the sealant chemistry.

Keywords: Adaptability, enameloplasty, sealants


How to cite this article:
Khan TN, Khan FR. Evaluation of In situ Adaptability of two types of fissure sealants placed with or without enameloplasty. Dent Med Res 2022;10:7-11

How to cite this URL:
Khan TN, Khan FR. Evaluation of In situ Adaptability of two types of fissure sealants placed with or without enameloplasty. Dent Med Res [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Jan 30];10:7-11. Available from: https://www.dmrjournal.org/text.asp?2022/10/1/7/366445




  Introduction Top


Pits and fissures are the developmental defects naturally present on the tooth surface. These imperfections are caused by the imperfect coalescence of the developing enamel lobes. The geometry of the pits and fissures offer an ideal niche which provide cariogenic bacteria an environment to reside in and produce acid that is essential for the carious attack.[1] Most fissures are shallow and end blindly but some are deep and may communicate up to the dentin. In order to prevent caries propagation into pits and fissures, various approaches have been suggested in the dental literature. Blocking the fissures with zinc oxide-based cements or preparing the cavity walls by intentionally extending into the fissures (known as extension for prevention) or prophylactic odontotomy were some procedures advocated in old literature.[2] In contemporary dental practice, occluding these defects with fissure sealants is the most commonly used method.[3]

Fissure sealants were introduced in dental practice in early 1970s.[4] The sealants physically occlude the pits and fissures and deny the bacteria of the ecologic environment required for caries propagation. One of the basic requirements of sealants material is to be fluid enough to be flown easily into the fissures. Moreover, it has to provide a perfect seal around the walls of the fissures.[5] In other words, the desirable quality of a sealant is to be perfectly adaptable into the fissure anatomy.[5] Resin-modified glass ionomer-based sealant (RMGIC) and flowable resin-based sealant (RC) are the two most widely used varieties of the fissure sealants[6] The RC are generally accepted as the “gold standard.”[7]

Enameloplasty was introduced as one of the pretreatments that could improve the sealant retention. However, the utility of enameloplasty in improving the adaptability of sealant material into fissure is not established.[8] There is evidence in favor of enameloplasty[9] and against it.[8] The key argument against enameloplasty is that it worsens the microleakage.[10] In between these two extremes, there are studies which demonstrate no difference whether enameloplasty is done or not.[11]

We hypothesized that adaptability of sealant material is different in the fissures of teeth treated with enameloplasty versus no enameloplasty. The objective of the study is to explore the effect of enameloplasty on the adaptability of the two sealant materials, namely RMGIC and RC.


  Materials and Methods Top


An in vitro, experimental study was done from July to November 2017. For sample size calculations, the WHO calculator (sample size determination in health studies by Lwanga) was used. We employed the study by Khanal et al.;[11] who evaluated microleakage and adaptability of glass ionomer and resin sealants with invasive and noninvasive technique. Keeping the mean difference of mean adaptability scores among study groups 1.8 ± 0.83 and 2.6 ± 0.89 at confidence level 95% and power of study 80%, we needed at least 17 specimens per group. We inflated it to 20 per group to compensate for processing errors in preparation of the study slides. Since there were four study groups, we took 80 teeth. The formula for sample size calculation was:



Eighty human extracted premolars and molars were collected from dental clinics from subjects who were scheduled for extraction for advanced periodontal disease. We excluded teeth that were cracked, had fractured crown or were malformed, or with erosion, caries, attrition or previous restorations. Presence of such defects would adversely affect the sealant adaptability and hence act as a confounder to distort the study results.

After cleaning with pumice water and disinfecting with hydrogen peroxide, the extracted teeth were stored in 0.9% NaCl at 4°C. Teeth were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 20) each. Groups were based on type of fissure sealants (RMGIC or RC) and whether enameloplasty was done or not. The distribution is shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: Distribution of specimens in the study groups and their respective adaptability scores

Click here to view


For enameloplasty, a pear-shaped diamond bur, American Dental Association no. 330 (SwissTec, Switzerland) was used in a high speed handpiece while keeping the bur right angle to the tooth surface. The dimensions of the enameloplasty were essentially dictated by the dimensions of the bur (0.80 mm diameter, 8° taper and 1 mm depth). All the preparation were standardized. Each bur was used for making 10 enameloplasty preparation, thus a total of four burs were used in the study.

Following products were employed for sealants: RMGIC: Vitremer; 3M-ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA. Adhesive (Adper Single Bond; 3M-ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). Flowable resin sealants: Filtek Flow; 3M-ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). Once the enameloplasty is done, etchant (37% phosphoric acid, Ultradent, USA) was used on the prepared teeth for 15 s. Then teeth were washed (15 s) and dried thoroughly (5–10 s) using air water syringe. Adper single bond adhesive was applied over the fissures; air-thinned and light cured for 20 s followed by Filtek flow which was cured for similar amount of time.

Quartz–tungsten–halogen-based curing light (Polylux, Kavo, Germany) were used to cure all the specimens. The light output intensity was measured by the light intensity meter (Caulk Cure-Rite by L. D. Caulk/Dentsply, USA). It was above 500 mW/cm.

For RMGIC, the liquid and powder were first mixed in a ratio of 2:1, the mixed material was applied over the selected teeth using corpule tip gun (Dentsply, USA), air-thinned and light cured for 40 s. Thermo-cycling of the specimen were carried out to simulate clinical environment to the sample teeth using controlled digital water bath (Human Lab Instrument Co, Korea). The water bath regulated the temperatures of 60°C ± 2°C, and 37°C ± 2°C along the crushed ice container in refrigerator maintained 4°C ± 2°C with dwell time of 30 s.[12]

The teeth crowns were sectioned at the cementoenamel junction using high speed handpiece (NSK, Japan) and were then embedded into the epoxy resin. Crowns were then sectioned buccolingually using diamond cutting saw (EQ MT 4, MTI Corp., USA).

Sample slides were exposed to sunlight for 24 h to control the moisture. The sample slides were then sputter coated with silver in JEOL JFC-1500 AutoFine coater for 120 s before being examined with an analytical scanning electron microscope (SEM) by JEOL JSM 6380 LA, Japan using magnification of ×20X–×450. Samples were scored as following:[11]

  1. Good: Complete adaptation of material in all fissures
  2. Fair: Failure of adaptation to only one interface
  3. Poor: Failure of adaptation to more than one interface.


Four specimens in one group were discarded due to processing error, resulting in 76 slides which were examined under SEM A single trained assessor observed the sample slides under magnification of ×50 and rated the adaptability of sealant using the ordinal score as described above.

SPSS version 23.0 (IBM, Chicago, USA). was used for data analysis. Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare the adaptability of sealant in the presence or absence of enameloplasty in the two types of sealants. Ordinal regression was applied to see the effect of sealant material and enameloplasty over the outcome (adaptability of sealant in the fissure). Level of significance was kept at 0.05.


  Results Top


The sealant adaptability scores are shown in [Table 1]. The best adaptability (corresponding with lowest mean ranks) was demonstrated by RC-based sealants (34.81 ± 4.07) placed without any enameloplasty. The least adaptable were RC-based sealants (44.5 ± 4.66) observed with enameloplasty. The details are shown in [Table 1].

[Figure 1] shows that there was no significant difference in the adaptability scores when two types of sealants (RC vs. RMGIC) were compared. Enameloplasty exerted a negative influence over the adaptability scores of sealants (P = 0.02) as stated in [Table 2].
Figure 1: Comparison of the two sealants types placed with or without enameloplasty. (a) Resin-based sealant with enameloplasty, (b) Resin-based sealant without enameloplasty, (c) RMGIC sealant with enameloplasty, (d) RMGIC sealant without enameloplasty; RMGIC = Resin-modified glass ionomer-based sealant

Click here to view
Table 2: Effect of enameloplasty over adaptability scores of the sealants

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


A perfect seal at the tooth-restoration interface that is impervious to saliva and other fluids is the key factor in the success of any dental restoration.[13] Sealing does not only depend upon the type of bond a dental restoration has made with the tooth substance, but also on the chemical nature of the material used.[14] In this respect, the present study compares two varieties of sealant materials for their adaptability into the pits and fissures of the teeth. Moreover, the effect of enameloplasty was also evaluated to determine if it improves the adaptability of sealant or not.

We employed an adhesive (Adper Single Bond) prior to the application of RC-based sealant. This practice is not universally followed.[15] Similarly, an adhesive was also used as a primer prior to the RMGIC-based sealants placement. The idea was to standardize the methodology and offer similar priming of the surfaces.

With regards to the adaptability, both RC and RMGIC exhibited similar scores [Table 1]. Our findings are similar to Goncalves and Kobayashi who compared the adaptability results of RC with GIC-based sealants and concluded that adaptability of both were similar.[16] This suggests that use of a priming adhesive before sealants does improve the adaptability of the sealant material.

It has been known that the adhesive primers improve wettability of sealant materials.[17] An interesting observation was that the use of adhesive primer prevented the propagation of crack under RMGIC material. This was evident by the fact that a number RMGIC material exhibited cracks on surface but the crack disappeared at the adhesive-RMGIC interface, suggesting that adhesive had a protective effect under RMGIC. It was documented in detail in a previous study.[18] This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that adhesive primers are resilient in nature[19] and if used as pretreatment, these can at least camouflage, if not prevent the desiccation of the overlying brittle RMGIC material.

Owing to the brittle nature, glass ionomers are easily desiccated.[20] Incorporation of resin in traditional glass ionomer (i.e., RMGIC) makes it more resilient and flowable.[21] Various approaches have been recommended in literature to improve the adaptability of the sealant material.[8] These include application of alcohol wipes, application of pumice slurry, or fissurotomy (commonly referred to as enameloplasty). However, no material or technique has been considered as gold standard in this regard. Enameloplasty is believed to be enhancing the surface area for sealant adhesion. However, its clinical effectiveness is still questionable.[8],[9],[10] The present study also shows that enameloplasty did not bring any improvement in the adaptability of sealant into the fissure.

There is no consensus over the bur selection for the enameloplasty.[9],[22] Geiger et al. did suggest that for enameloplasty, pear-shaped burs or tapered burs produce better morphology than round burs.[23] For the same reasons, #330 bur was used in the present study. However, our data indicated that enameloplasty did not have any beneficial value with respect to the adaptability of sealant. One of the probable explanations of this observation would be the “C” factor. The C-factor is the ratio between bounded to unbounded surface areas of a polymer-based restoration.[17]

This C-factor appears to be the primary factor responsible for exacerbating the polymerization stresses which could have led to the weakening of the bond between sealant and tooth substance.[17] This speculation may hold true for resin-based sealants which set with polymerization reaction but what could be the explanation of poor performance of enameloplasty subjected RMGIC-based sealants (whose primary setting reaction is an acid-base reaction)? The answer is not clear.

Xalabarde et al.[24] have done detailed investigation on fissures after enameloplasty, and studied the effect of thermocycling on the adaptation of enamel surfaces of filled and unfilled sealants. They concluded that sealant adaptation to enamel was superior when the enameloplasty was used. However, there was no difference in penetration and adaptation between the filled and the unfilled sealants or between the thermocycled or un-thermocycled sealants.[24] Interestingly, in a later investigation by Xalabarde et al.,[25] where they evaluated microleakage of a filled and an unfilled sealants after occlusal enameloplasty, they concluded that there is no statistical significant difference in the microleakage between the thermocycled and nonthermocycled groups, between the enameloplasty or with no enameloplasty or between the filled and unfilled sealants.[25] Thus, it appears that the overall adaptability of the sealant material has more to do with the material flowability, bonding with tooth substance, handling characteristics, and placement technique than the enameloplasty.[26],[27]

The strengths of the study include adequate sample size, using two common varieties of sealants, and addressing a common clinical question which entails use of an additional procedure (enameloplasty) which was believed to yield superior outcome but it turned out that the opposite is true. Another strength in our methodology was that the thermocycling was carried out to simulate intraoral environment. The limitations of the present study are an in vitro experiment and only one type of bur (pear-shaped) for enameloplasty was used.


  Conclusions Top


No significant difference was observed between resin and RMGIC-based sealants for their in situ adaptability in the tooth fissures. Enameloplasty exerted a negative impact on the adaptability of the sealant irrespective of the chemistry of sealant material employed.

Ethical clearance

The study was ethically approved by the IRB committee of the Dow University of Health Sciences, Reference no.: IRB-252/DUHS - 11.

Financial support and sponsorship

The study was funded by the research facilitating committee of the Dow University of Health Sciences. Grant #DUHS/Dr/2011/738.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Michalaki M, Oulis CJ, Pandis N, Eliades G. Histochemical changes of occlusal surface enamel of permanent teeth, where dental caries is questionable versus sound enamel surfaces. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2016;17:445-54.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Simonsen RJ. From prevention to therapy: Minimal intervention with sealants and resin restorative materials. J Dent 2011;39 Suppl 2:S27-33.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Arastoo S, Behbudi A, Rakhshan V. In vitro microleakage comparison of flowable nanocomposites and conventional materials used in pit and fissure sealant therapy. Front Dent 2019;16:21-30.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Reddy VR, Chowdhary N, Mukunda KS, Kiran NK, Kavyarani BS, Pradeep MC. Retention of resin-based filled and unfilled pit and fissure sealants: A comparative clinical study. Contemp Clin Dent 2015;6:S18-23.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Gorseta K, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Vrazic T, Glavina D. An In-Vitro Analysis of microleakage of self-adhesive fissure sealant versus. Conventional and GIC fissure sealants. Dent J (Basel) 2019;7:E32.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Kondo Y, Ito S, Uehara O, Kurashige Y, Fujita Y, Saito T, et al. Chemical and biological properties of new sealant-use cement materials. Dent Mater 2019;35:673-85.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Ei TZ, Shimada Y, Nakashima S, Romero MJ Sumi Y, Tagami J. Comparison of resin-based and glass ionomer sealants with regard to fluoride-release and anti-demineralization efficacy on adjacent unsealed enamel. Dent Mater J 2018;37:104-12.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Meligy OA El, Bakry NS. Evaluation of pumice, fissure enameloplasty, dentin adhesive and air abrasion on sealant microleakage. J Dent Oral Care Med 2015;1:1-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Kwon S, Lee S, Lee N, Jih M, Yoon Y. Penetration and microleakage assessment of flowable resin applied on carious fissure following various fissurotomy techniques. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent 2018;45:90-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Khan TN, Khan FR, Abidi SY. Ameloplasty is counterproductive in reducing microleakage around resin modified glass ionomer and resin based fissure sealants. Pak J Med Sci 2020;36:544-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Khanal S, Suprabha B, Srikant N. Evaluation of microleakage and adaptability of glass ionomer and resin sealants with invasive and non-invasive technique. J Nepal Dent Assoc 2010;11:4-10.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Wahab FK, Shaini FJ, Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite class V restorations in vitro. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:168-74.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Bolli RV, Sumanthini MV, Shenoy UV, Agrawal AM. Management of traumatized open apex teeth with mineral trioxide aggregate apexification and demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft as apical matrix. J Contempt Dent 2016;6:194-99.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Khan TN, Abidi SY. Comparison of retrograde, primary and secondary bonding materials with tooth substance. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2018;28:9-12.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Bagherian A, Sarraf Shirazi A, Sadeghi R. Adhesive systems under fissure sealants: Yes or no? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2016;147:446-56.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Gonçalves PS, Kobayashi TY. Pit and fissure sealants with different materials: Resin basedxglass ionomer cement – Results after six months. Pesq Brasil Odont Clin Integ 2016;16:15-23.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G, Tenore G, Romeo U, Migliau G. Classification review of dental adhesive systems: From the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2017;8:1-17.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Khan TN, Ali Abidi SY, Nawaz Khan KB, Ahmed S, Rehman Qazi FU, Saeed N. Micromechanical intervention in sandwich restoration. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2015;25:781-4.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Freitas PH, Giannini M, França R, Correr AB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Consani S. Correlation between bond strength and nanomechanical properties of adhesive interface. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:1055-62.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Simmons JO, Meyers EJ, Lien W, Banfield RL, Roberts HW, Vandewalle KS. Effect of surface treatments on the mechanical properties and antimicrobial activity of desiccated glass ionomers. Dent Mater 2016;32:1343-51.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Iqbal A, Fishan M, Sahar R. Evaluating the efficacy of resin modified glass ionomer cement versus conventional glass ionomer cement in terms of success rate: A clinical assessment exploring the best in between. Pak J Med Health Sci 2017;11;336-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Tzifa V, Arhakis A. Sealant retention in pits and fissures: Preparation and application techniques. A literature review. Balk J Stom 2013;17:9-17.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Geiger SB, Gulayev S, Weiss EI. Improving fissure sealant quality: Mechanical preparation and filling level. J Dent 2000;28:407-12.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Xalabarde A, Garcia-Godoy F, Boj JR, Canaida C. Fissure micromorphology and sealant adaptation after occlusal enameloplasty. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1996;20:299-304.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Xalabarde A, Garcia-Godoy F, Boj JR, Canalda C. Microleakage of fissure sealants after occlusal enameloplasty and thermocycling. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998;22:231-5.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Khan TN, Khan FR, Rizwan S, Nawaz Khan KB, Iqbal SN, Ali Abidi SY. Comparison of the adaptability of two fissure sealants in various tooth fissure morphology patterns: An in vitro experimental study. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2019;31:418-21.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Shingare P, Chaugule V. An in vitro microleakage study for comparative analysis of two types of resin-based sealants placed by using three different types of techniques of enamel preparation. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14:475-81.  Back to cited text no. 27
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed391    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded51    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]