In Vitro Evaluation of Different Protocols for Preventing Microleakage of Fissure Sealants Placed Following Saliva Contamination

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different enamel conditioning protocols and their re-application on the microleakage of fissure sealants placed following saliva contamination. Study design: The study included 156 human third molars in 16 subgroups (2X4X2) under two main groups (sealant type): Group A- hydrophobic resin sealant, 3M Clinpro™ Sealant; Group B- hydrophilic resin sealant, Ultraseal XT Hydro. Each group was then divided according to the type of surface conditioning; 1- Er,Cr:YSSG laser etching, 2- acid-etching, 3- acid-etching+etch-and-rinse adhesive (Prime&Bond® One Select) and 4- self-etching adhesive (Clearfil™ SE Bond). After contaminating the conditioned occlusal enamel surfaces with artificial saliva, fissure sealant was applied in half of the specimens (a), whereas in the other half, (b) the respective surface conditioning was repeated and then fissure sealant was placed. Following thermocycling, the samples were immersed in basic fuchsin, sectioned, and dye penetration was quantitatively assessed with ImageJ. Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used for statistical analyses (p<0.05). Results: The least microleakage was observed in A3b and A3a, whereas B4b and B4a were the subgroups with the highest microleakage. Following saliva contamination, when surface conditioning was not re-applied, the effects of fissure sealant types and surface conditioning were significant (p=0.005 and p<0.001, respectively). However, their interaction was insignificant (p=0.173). When surface conditioning was re-applied after saliva contamination, the effects of type of fissure sealant and surface conditioning (p=0.000, for both) and their interaction (p=0.004) were significant. Conclusions: 3M Clinpro™ Sealant was superior to Ultraseal XT Hydro. Re-application of Er,Cr:YSSG laser and the self-etching adhesive did not affect the microleakage of both fissure sealants. Without re-application, acid-etching+etch-and-rinse adhesive was superior to acid-etching only. However, both of them were similarly successful when they were re-applied following saliva contamination.

Pit and fissure sealants; Saliva contamination; Microleakage; Etch-and-rinse adhesive; Selfetching adhesive; Er,Cr:YSSG laser

1. Fejerskov O. Changing paradigms in concepts on dental caries: consequences for oral health care. Caries Res; 38:182-191. 2004.

2. Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent; 24:393-414. 2002.

3. Simonsen RJ, Neal RC. A review of the clinical application and performance of pit and fissure sealants. Aust Dent J; 56:45-58. 2011.

4. Guclu ZA, Donmez N, Hurt AP, Coleman NJ. Characterisation and microleakage of a new hydrophilic fissure sealant–UltraSeal XT(R) hydro. J Appl Oral Sci; 24:344-351. 2016.

5. Feigal RJ, Hitt J, Splieth C. Retaining sealant on salivary contaminated enamel. J Am Dent Assoc; 124:88-97. 1993.

6. Feigal RJ, Musherure P, Gillespie B, Levy-Polack M, Quelhas I, Hebling J. Improved sealant retention with bonding agents: a clinical study of two-bottle and single-bottle systems. J Dent Res; 79:1850-1856. 2000.

7. Hitt JC, Feigal RJ. Use of a bonding agent to reduce sealant sensitivity to moisture contamination: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent; 14:41-46. 1992.

8. Borsatto MC, Corona SA, Alves AG, Chimello DT, Catirse AB, Palma-Dibb RG. Influence of salivary contamination on marginal microleakage of pit and fissure sealants. Am J Dent; 17:365-367. 2004.

9. Cehreli ZC, Gungor HC. Quantitative microleakage evaluation of fissure sealants applied with or without a bonding agent: results after four-year water storage in vitro. J Adhes Dent; 10:379-384. 2008.

10. McCafferty J, O’Connell AC. A randomised clinical trial on the use of intermediate bonding on the retention of fissure sealants in children. Int J Paediatr Dent; 26:110-115. 2015.

11. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater; 17:430-444. 2001.

12. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res; 84:118-132. 2005.

13. Hitmi L, Attal JP, Degrange M. Influence of the time-point of salivary contamination on dentin shear bond strength of 3 dentin adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent; 1:219-232. 1999.

14. Yazici AR, Tuncer D, Dayangac B, Ozgunaltay G, Onen A. The effect of saliva contamination on microleakage of an etch-and-rinse and a selfetching adhesive. J Adhes Dent; 9:305-309. 2007.

15. Khatri SG, Samuel SR, Acharya S, Patil S, Madan K. Retention of moisture-tolerant and conventional resin-based sealant in six- to nine-year-old children. Pediatr Dent; 37:366-370. 2015.
16. Guclu ZA, Donmez N, Tuzuner T, Odabas ME, Hurt AP, Coleman NJ. The impact of Er:YAG laser enamel conditioning on the microleakage of a new hydrophilic sealant—UltraSeal XT hydro. Lasers Med Sci; 31:705-711. 2016.

17. Silverstone LM, Hicks MJ, Featherstone MJ. Oral fluid contamination of etched enamel surfaces: an SEM study. J Am Dent Assoc; 110:329-332. 1985.

18. Raskin A, Tassery H, D’Hoore W, Gonthier S, Vreven J, Degrange M, et al. Influence of the number of sections on reliability of in vitro microleakage evaluations. Am J Dent; 16:207-210. 2003.

19. Duangthip D, Lussi A. Microleakage and penetration ability of resin sealant versus bonding system when applied following contamination. Pediatr Dent; 25:505-511. 2003.

20. Gawali PN, Chaugule VB, Panse AM. Comparison of microleakage and penetration depth between hydrophilic and hydrophobic sealants in primary second molar. Int J Clin Paediatr Dent; 9:291-295. 2016.

21. Bagherian A, Ahmadkhani M, Sheikhfathollahi M, Bahramabadinejad R. Microbial microleakage assessment of a new hydrophilic fissure sealant: a laboratory study. Pediatr Dent; 35:194-198. 2013.

22. Khogli AE, Cauwels R, Vercruysse C, Verbeeck R, Martens LC. Microleakage and penetration of a hydrophilic sealant and a conventional resin‐ based sealant as a function of preparation techniques: a laboratory study. Int J Paediatr Dent; 23:13-22. 2013.

23. Lupi-Pegurier L, Bertrand MF, Muller-Bolla M, Rocca JP, Bolla M. Comparative study of microleakage of a pit and fissure sealant placed after preparation by Er:YAG laser in permanent molars. J Dent Child (Chic); 70:134-138. 2003.

24. Francescut P, Lussi A. Performance of a conventional sealant and a flowable composite on minimally invasive prepared fissures. Oper Dent; 31:543- 550. 2006.

25. Ciucchi P, Neuhaus KW, Emerich M, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A. Evaluation of different types of enamel conditioning before application of a fissure sealant. Lasers Med Sci; 30:1-9. 2015.

26. Burrow MF, Burrow JF, Makinson OF. Pits and fissures: etch resistance in prismless enamel walls. Aust Dent J; 46:258-262. 2001.

27. Torii Y, Itou K, Hikasa R, Iwata S, Nishitani Y. Enamel tensile bond strength and morphology of resin-enamel interface created by acid etching system with or without moisture and self-etching priming system. J Oral Rehabil; 29:528-533. 2002.

28. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent; 27:523-530. 1999.

29. Hannig M, Grafe A, Atalay S, Bott B. Microleakage and SEM evaluation of fissure sealants placed by use of self-etching priming agents. J Dent; 32:75-81. 2004.

30. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials; 28:3757-3785. 2007.

31. 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; 147:446-456. 2016.

32. Lopes LS, Calazans FS, Hidalgo R, Buitrago LL, Gutierrez F, Reis A, et al. Six-month follow-up of cervical composite restorations placed with a new universal adhesive system: A randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent; 41:465-480. 2016.

33. Nair P, Hickel R, Ilie N. Adverse effects of salivary contamination for adhesives in restorative dentistry. A literature review. Am J Dent; 30:156-164. 2017.

34. Borem LM, Feigal RJ. Reducing microleakage of sealants under salivary contamination: Digital-image analysis evaluation. Quintessence Int; 25:283-289. 1994.

35. Abdalla AI, Davidson CL. Bonding efficiency and interfacial morphology of one-bottle adhesives to contaminated dentin surfaces. Am J Dent; 11:281-285. 1998.

36. Hebling J, Feigal RJ. Use of one-bottle adhesive as an intermediate bonding layer to reduce sealant microleakage on saliva-contaminated enamel. Am J Dent; 13:187-191. 2000.

37. Finer Y, Santerre JP. Salivary esterase activity and its association with the biodegradation of dental composites. J Dent Res; 83:22-26. 2004