Publication:
Microhardness evaluation of enamel adjacent to an improved GIC sealant after different enamel pre-treatment procedures

dc.contributor.authorsHaznedaroglu, E.; Sozkes, S.; Mentes, A. R.
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-13T12:45:37Z
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-11T10:47:33Z
dc.date.available2022-03-13T12:45:37Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.description.abstractAim This in vitro study was carried out to evaluate the microhardness of enamel adjacent to a glass ionomer cement (GIC) with high fluoride content used as a sealant (Fuji Triage, GC Corp., Japan) after laser, bur or air abrasion treatment procedures. Materials and methods Study design: 200 freshly extracted non-carious human molars were divided into 10 experimental groups according to the enamel pretreatment method: A air abrasion (Mach 4.1 Kreativ Inc., USA); AP, Air abrasion + conditioning with 20% polyacrylic acid (GC cavity conditioner); L, Er, Cr:YSGG laser application (Waterlase, Biolase Technology, Inc., San Clemente, USA); LP, Er, Cr: YSGG laser application and fissure conditioning; B, ameloplasty carried out with a diamond bur especially designed for preparing fissures (Komet #8833); BP, ameloplasty + fissure conditioning; P, application of 20% polyacrylic acid and all fissures sealed with GIC; C, no fissure treatment, the material was applied directly to the fissures (control); R, application of 37% orthophosphoric acid and fissures sealed with a resin-based sealant (Fissurit; Voco, Germany) (control); N, no treatment (control). Half of each group of teeth were left in artificial saliva for one month and the rest for three months. The teeth were then sectioned and microhardness was measured using a Vickers test apparatus. Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U and Dunn's multiple comparison tests were carried out (5% significance). Results After one month results regarding hardness at the base and lateral walls of fissures were significantly higher in groups A, AP, L, LP, B, BP, P and C than in groups R and N (p<0.01), but no difference was seen between the treatment procedures. The results after three months produced similar findings with evenly increased values for all groups. Conclusion The results of this study showed that the tested GIC with a higher fluoride content seemed to improve the enamel hardness of the fissure enamel and could be regarded as an alternative material in cases where resin sealant applications are questionable.
dc.identifier.doidoiWOS:000349608000013
dc.identifier.eissn2035-648X
dc.identifier.issn1591-996X
dc.identifier.pubmed25517588
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11424/237813
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000349608000013
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherARIESDUE SRL
dc.relation.ispartofEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectAir abrasion
dc.subjectFissure sealant
dc.subjectGlass ionomer cement (GIC)
dc.subjectLaser
dc.subjectMicrohardness
dc.subjectFISSURE SEALANTS
dc.subjectGLASS-IONOMER
dc.subjectIN-VITRO
dc.subjectMICROLEAKAGE
dc.subjectCARIES
dc.subjectPIT
dc.subjectINHIBITION
dc.subjectPREVENTION
dc.subjectSEM
dc.titleMicrohardness evaluation of enamel adjacent to an improved GIC sealant after different enamel pre-treatment procedures
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage400
oaire.citation.issue4
oaire.citation.startPage397
oaire.citation.titleEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY
oaire.citation.volume15

Files