Citation Information :
Diener V, Zinelis S, Eliades T. Water-induced Effects on the Hardness and Modulus of Contemporary Sealants Derived from Instrumented Indentation Testing (IIT). J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (6):653-656.
Aim: To compare the mechanical properties of four different types of contemporary fissure sealants before and after water storage employing a modern instrumented indentation testing (IIT) method.
Materials and methods: Four different types of materials used in everyday practice were deliberately selected. Fissurit (FIS) is a highly filled resin, Embrace (EMB) is a bisphenol A (BPA)-free unfilled resin, Helioseal (HEL) is an unfilled resin, and Riva Protect (RIV) is a glass-ionomer material. Six cylindrical specimens from each material were prepared (h: 3 mm, O: 15 mm), and Martens hardness (HM), elastic modulus (EIT), elastic index (ƒÅIT), and Vickers hardness (HV) were determined employing an IIT machine according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14577:2015. Then, the samples were stored in water at 37°C for 48 hours and measured again at the same surface. The mechanical properties tested (HM, EIT, ƒÅIT, and HV) were statistically analyzed by two-way repeated measurements analysis of variance (ANOVA) employing materials and conditions as discriminating variables. Statistically significant differences were identified by Tukey\'s post hoc multiple comparison test. In all cases, a 95% level of significance was set (p = 0.05).
Results: Statistically significant differences in selected mechanical properties were allocated among materials tested. The artificial aging had a detrimental effect on HM, EIT, and HV apart from çIT for FIS, EMB, and HEL. In contrast, no significant differences were identified for RIV before and after water storage for all aforementioned properties apart from çIT.
Conclusion: Significant differences were identified in mechanical properties among materials tested and thus differences in their clinical behavior are anticipated
Clinical significance: This study contributes to the understanding of the mechanical properties of different dental sealants with respect to water contact, which may influence the choice by the therapist
Lynch RJM. The primary and mixed dentition, post-eruptive enamel maturation and dental caries: a review. Int Dent J 2013;63 Suppl 2:3–13. DOI: 10.1111/idj.12076.
Wright JT, Crall JJ, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2016;147(8):672–682.e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.06.001.
Welbury R, Raadal M, et al. EAPD guidelines for the use of pit and fissure sealants. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2004;5(3):179–184.
Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Forss H, et al. Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;1:CD003067. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003067.pub4.
Kühnisch J, Ekstrand KR, et al. Best clinical practice guidance for management of early caries lesions in children and young adults: an EAPD policy document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2016;17(1):3–12. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-015-0218-4.
Nunn JH, Murray JJ, et al. British Society of Paediatric Dentistry: a policy document on fissure sealants in paediatric dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent 2000;10(2):174–177.
Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(5):393–414.
Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Forss H, et al. Sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;3:CD001830. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub4.
Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S. Evaluation of different fissure sealant materials and flowable composites used as pit-and-fissure sealants: a 24 month clinical trial. Pediatr Dent 2015;37(5):468–473.
Prabhakar AR, Murthy SA, et al. Comparative evaluation of the length of resin tags, viscosity and microleakage of pit and fissure sealants – an in vitro scanning electron microscope study. Contemp Clin Dent 2011;2(4):324–330. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.91797.
Sen Tunc E, Bayrak S, et al. Evaluation of microtensile bond strength of different fissure sealants to bovine enamel. Aust Dent J 2012;57(1): 79–84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01639.x.
Naoum SJ, Mutzelburg PR, et al. Reducing composite restoration polymerization shrinkage stress through resin modified glassionomer based adhesives. Aust Dent J 2015;60(4):490–496. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12265.
de Abreu RAM, Pereira MD, et al. Masticatory efficiency and bite force in individuals with normal occlusion. Arch Oral Biol 2014;59(10): 1065–1074. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2014.05.005.
Eliades A, Birpou E, et al. Self-adhesive restoratives as pit and fissure sealants: a comparative laboratory study. Dent Mater 2013;29(7): 752–762. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.04.005.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14577-1:2015 metallic materials – instrumented indentation test for hardness and materials parameters – part 1: test method [internet]. Geneva: ISO; published 2015-07. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/56626.html.
Shahdad SA, McCabe JF, et al. Hardness measured with traditional Vickers and Martens hardness methods. Dent Mater 2007;23(9): 1079–1085. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.10.001.
Bevilacqua L, Sossi A, et al. Comparative evaluation of the microhardness of 4 dental sealants. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2007;8(4): 179–182.
Kuşgöz A, Tüzüner T, et al. Conversion degree, microhardness, microleakage and fluoride release of different fissure sealants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2010;3(8):594–599. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2010.07.008.
Magni E, Ferrari M, et al. Evaluation of the mechanical properties of dental adhesives and glass-ionomer cements. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14(1):79–87. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-009-0259-3.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TS 11405:2015 dentistry – testing of adhesion to tooth structure [internet]. Geneva: ISO; published 2015-02. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/62898.html.