Article Data

  • Views 1746
  • Dowloads 369

Original Research

Open Access

In vitro evaluation of wear resistance, microhardness and superficial roughness of different fissure sealants after aging

  • Hulya Cerci Akcay1,2,*,
  • Oya Aktoren1

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, 34126 Istanbul, Turkey

2Istanbul University Institute of Graduate Studies of Health Sciences, 34126 Istanbul, Turkey

DOI: 10.22514/jocpd.2024.005 Vol.48,Issue 1,January 2024 pp.32-40

Submitted: 28 April 2023 Accepted: 26 June 2023

Published: 03 January 2024

*Corresponding Author(s): Hulya Cerci Akcay E-mail: hlycrc@gmail.com

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the aging effects on wear, surface roughness and microhardness of fissure sealants having varying contents. Four fissure sealant types were used in the study: Aegis (Bosworth, USA) (Group A), Beautisealant (Shofu, Japan)(Group B), Clinpro (3M, USA) (Group C), and Ultraseal XT/Hydro (Ultradent, USA)(Group U). Hundred disc-shaped specimens (5 mm diameter/3 mm width) were designed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and assigned for microhardness/Vickers Hardness (VHN), surface roughness, and wear tests. Thermocycling (10,000 times/5–55 ◦C ± 2 ◦C/20 s) and chewing simulator (75,000 times/49 N) were applied as the aging procedures. Measurements were made before and after the aging procedures. The specimens were examined by Scanning Electrone Microscopy (SEM). Data was statistically analyzed through Kruskal Wallis, Wilcoxon and Welch tests. The highest and the lowest changes in mean microhardness values were obtained for Group U (9.88± 1.46) and Group A (4.40 ± 0.46), respectively; and a significant difference (p < 0.001) was found between the mean changes in microhardness numbers (U > B > C > A). The median roughness values had no significant difference; the surface roughness had the highest mean differences in Groups U and C (U = C > A > B). Significant difference was found between the mean changes in wear/weight values (p < 0.001); the highest and the lowest mean weight losses were recorded in Group U (0.0097 ± 0.0003 gr), and Group C (0.0041 ± 0.0006 gr), respectively (U > B > A > C). The highest physical changes were determined in Group U after the aging procedures. It is concluded that the aging procedures affect physical structures of all test materials with varying degrees, however Ultraseal XT/Hydro is the most affected. The individual treatment needs and material properties must be considered to select a fissure sealant material.


Keywords

Fissure sealant; Wear; Microhardness; Roughness; Aging procedure


Cite and Share

Hulya Cerci Akcay,Oya Aktoren. In vitro evaluation of wear resistance, microhardness and superficial roughness of different fissure sealants after aging. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2024. 48(1);32-40.

References

[1] Wen PYF, Chen MX, Zhong YJ, Dong QQ, Wong HM. Global burden and inequality of dental caries, 1990 to 2019. Journal of Dental Research. 2022; 101: 392–399.

[2] Pitts NB, Twetman S, Fisher J, Marsh PD. Understanding dental caries as a non-communicable disease. British Dental Journal. 2021; 231: 749–753.

[3] Butera A, Maiorani C, Morandini A, Simonini M, Morittu S, Trombini J, et al. Evaluation of children caries risk factors: a narrative review of nutritional aspects, oral hygiene habits, and bacterial alterations. Children. 2022; 9: 262.

[4] Kharouba J, Gonoratsky AA, Brosh T, Masri M, Iraqi R, Blumer S. Effect of different etching times on pit-and-fissure sealant micro-shear bond strength to the enamel of primary teeth. Children. 2023; 10: 461.

[5] Chen W, Jiang Q, Yan G, Yang D. The oral microbiome and salivary proteins influence caries in children aged 6 to 8 years. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20: 295.

[6] STRUŻYCKA I. The oral microbiome in dental caries. Polish Journal of Microbiology. 2014; 63: 127–135.

[7] Memarpour M, Rafiee A, Shafiei F, Dorudizadeh T, Kamran S. Adhesion of three types of fissure sealant in saliva-contaminated and noncontaminated conditions: an in vitro study. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2021; 22: 813–821.

[8] Rodriguez TM, Ardu S, Daeniker L, Krejci I. Evaluation of marginal adaptation, seal and resistance against fatigue cracks of different pit and fissure sealants under laboratory load. American Journal of Dentistry. 2011; 24: 367–371.

[9] PALA K, TEKÇE N, TUNCER S, SERİM ME, DEMİRCİ M. Evaluation of the surface hardness, roughness, gloss and color of composites after different finishing/polishing treatments and thermocycling using a multitechnique approach. Dental Materials Journal. 2016; 35: 278–289.

[10] Pardi V, Sinhoreti MAC, Pereira AC, Ambrosano GMB, Meneghim MDC. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of different materials used as pit-and-fissure sealants. Brazilian Dental Journal. 2006; 17: 49–52.

[11] Soliman N, Mohamed M. In vitro evaluation of wear resıstance of different fıssure sealants after agıng procedures. Egyptian Dental Journal. 2017; 63: 1729–1737.

[12] TEKÇE N, PALA K, TUNCER S, DEMİRCİ M. The effect of surface sealant application and accelerated aging on posterior restorative surfaces: an SEM and AFM study. Dental Materials Journal. 2017; 36: 182–189.

[13] Chowdhary N, Prabahar T, Konkappa KN, Vundela RR, Balamurugan S. Evaluation of microleakage of different types of pit and fissure sealants: an in vitro comparative study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2023; 15: 535–540.

[14] Kashbour W, Gupta P, Worthington HV, Boyers D. Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020; 11: CD003067.

[15] Li F, Jiang P, Yu F. Comparison between fissure sealant and fluoride varnish on caries prevention for first permanent molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 2020; 10: 2578.

[16] Gimenez T, Estevam LR, de Oliveira Ponte Y, Dalboni A, Calvo AFB, Tedesco TK, et al. Is there an acceptable surrogate for caries clinical trials? Evidence from a systematic review of primary studies. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 2023. [Preprint].

[17] Jafarzadeh D, Rezapour R, Abbasi T, Tabrizi J, Zeinolabedini M, Khalili A, et al. The effectiveness of fluoride varnish and fissure sealant in elementary school children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Iranian Journal of Public Health. 2022; 51: 266–277.

[18] Trehan M, Yadav S, Senthilkumar A, Chhabra C, Pradhan S, Shamsudeen NH. Comparative evaluation of fluoride release from glass ionomer, compomer, and giomer sealants following exposure to fluoride toothpaste and fluoride varnish: an in vitro study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2023; 15: 736–738.

[19] Zawaideh FI, Owais AI, Kawaja W. Ability of pit and fissure sealant-containing amorphous calcium phosphate to inhibit enamel demineralization. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2016; 9: 10–14.

[20] Saati K, Khansari S, Mahdisiar F, Valizadeh S. Evaluation of microhardness of two bulk-fill composite resins compared to a conventional composite resin on surface and in different depths. Journal of Dentistry. 2022; 23: 58–64.

[21] Subramaniam P, Kiran K, Vojjala B. Comparison of clinical efficacy of glass ionomer-based sealant using ART protocol and resin-based sealant on primary molars in children. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2023; 15: 724–728.

[22] Beun S, Bailly C, Devaux J, Leloup G. Physical, mechanical and rheological characterization of resin-based pit and fissure sealants compared to flowable resin composites. Dental Materials. 2012; 28: 349–359.

[23] Kuşgöz A, Tüzüner T, Ülker M, Kemer B, Saray O. Conversion degree, microhardness, microleakage and fluoride release of different fissure sealants. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2010; 3: 594–599.

[24] Botsalı MS. A study on the amount of residual monomer released after polymerization of resin-based pit and fissure sealants with different light sources, surface hardness and bond strength. Selcuk University Institute of Graduate Studies of Health Sciences 2008; Konya. (In Turkish)

[25] GÜÇLÜ ZA, DÖNMEZ N, HURT AP, COLEMAN NJ. Characterisation and microleakage of a new hydrophilic fissure sealant—UltraSeal XT® hydro™. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2016; 24: 344–351.

[26] Kessler A, Kapor S, Erdelt K, Hickel R, Edelhoff D, Syrek A, et al. Two-body wear and fracture behaviour of an experimental paediatric composite crown in comparison to zirconia and stainless steel crowns dependent on the cementation mode. Dental Materials. 2021; 37: 264–271.

[27] Zhou Y, Huang X, Wu L, Liang Y, Huang Y, Huang S. Microleakage, microgap, and shear bond strength of an infiltrant for pit and fissure sealing. Heliyon. 2023; 9: e16248.

[28] Kapoor V, Kumar A, Manjunath BC, Yadav V, Sabbarwal B. Comparative evaluation of retention and cariostatic effect of glass ionomer, hydrophobic & hydrophilic resin-based sealants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evidence Based Dentistry. 2023; 24: 41–42.

[29] HEINTZE S, FORJANIC M, ROUSSON V. Surface roughness and gloss of dental materials as a function of force and polishing time in vitro. Dental Materials. 2006; 22: 146–165.

[30] Bayraktar DY, Doğan DD, Ercan E. Effect of the different polishing systems and techniques on surface roughness of three different composite resin. Current Research in Dental Sciences. 2013; 23: 192–198. (In Turkish)

[31] Moda MD, Godas AGDL, Fernandes JC, Suzuki TYU, Guedes APA, Briso ALF, et al. Comparison of different polishing methods on the surface roughness of microhybrid, microfill, and nanofill composite resins. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry. 2018; 9.

[32] Ryba TM, Dunn WJ, Murchison DF. Surface roughness of various packable composites. Operative Dentistry. 2002; 27: 243–247.

[33] Bürgers R, Cariaga T, Müller R, Rosentritt M, Reischl U, Handel G, et al. Effects of aging on surface properties and adhesion of Streptococcus mutans on various fissure sealants. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2009; 13: 419–426.

[34] KAVALOGLU CILDIR S, SANDALLI N. Compressive strength, surface roughness, fluoride release and recharge of four new fluoride-releasing fissure sealants. Dental Materials Journal. 2007; 26: 335–341.

[35] Dederichs M, Fahmy MD, An H, Guentsch A, Viebranz S, Kuepper H. Comparison of wear resistance of prefabricated composite veneers versus ceramic and enamel. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2021; 30: 711–719.

[36] Baygin O, Korkmaz FM, Tüzüner T, Tanriver M. The effect of different enamel surface treatments on the microleakage of fissure sealants. Lasers in Medical Science. 2012; 27: 153–160.

[37] Mosleh AA, Abdallah SA, Shishiny SA, Mourad YO. Comparison of microleakage of different surface pre-treatment modalities of ionoseal® pit and fissure sealant in primary teeth: an in vitro study. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2022; 40: 453–458.

[38] KOYUTURK AE, KUSGOZ A, ULKER M, YESILYURT C. Effects of mechanical and thermal aging on microleakage of different fissure sealants. Dental Materials Journal. 2008; 27: 795–801.

[39] Rodriguez TM, Ardu S, Daeniker L, Krejci I. Evaluation of marginal adaptation, seal and resistance against fatigue cracks of different pit and fissure sealants under laboratory load. American Journal of Dentistry. 2011; 24: 367–371.

[40] Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, Silikas N. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 2007; 18: 155–163.

[41] NIKOLAIDIS A, VOUZARA T, KOULAOUZIDOU E. Pit and fissure nanocomposite sealants reinforced with organically modified montmorillonite: a study of their mechanical properties, surface roughness and color stability. Dental Materials Journal. 2020; 39: 773–783.

[42] Ruivo MA, Pacheco RR, Sebold M, Giannini M. Surface roughness and filler particles characterization of resin‐based composites. Microscopy Research and Technique. 2019; 82: 1756–1767.

[43] Bala O, Arisu DH, Yikilgan I, Arslan S, Gullu A. Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. European Journal of Dentistry. 2012; 6: 79–86.

[44] Moreira K, Kantovitz K, Bueno T, Agulhari M, Rizzante F, Aguiar J, et al. Indirect evaluation of pit and fissure sealants: a 3D-based method validation. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry. 2020; 12: e852–e856.


Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 1.8 (2023) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top