Premium
Heat‐treated glass ionomer cement fissure sealants: retention after 1 year follow‐up
Author(s) -
SKRINJARIC KRISTINA,
VRANIC DUBRAVKA NEGOVETIC,
GLAVINA DOMAGOJ,
SKRINJARIC ILIJA
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
international journal of paediatric dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.183
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1365-263X
pISSN - 0960-7439
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-263x.2007.00896.x
Subject(s) - glass ionomer cement , retention rate , dentistry , medicine , fissure , composite number , clinical practice , composite material , materials science , nursing , computer security , computer science
Objective. The aim of this study was to assess the retention rate of glass ionomer cement (GIC) fissure sealants heated during setting time. Methods. One hundred and twelve teeth with well‐delineated fissure morphology were sealed with composite resin and GIC. Composite resin (Helioseal F, Vivadent) was used in control group A (56 teeth). GIC (Fuji VII, GC) was applied using split‐mouth design with conditioning in group B (26 teeth) and without surface conditioning in group C (30 teeth). GIC was heated with external heat source (Elipar Trilight, Espe) for 40 s during the setting time according to the manufacturer's instructions. Fissure sealants were evaluated 1 year after clinical service. Results. Retention rate in group A was 80.4% after 1 year of clinical service. Group B showed retention rate of 30.8%, and group C of 26.7%. Two new caries lesions were detected in groups B and C. Significant differences in retention between the composite group and GIC groups were obtained by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests. Conclusion. It could be concluded that retention rate of GIC sealing treated with heat during setting time was significantly lower than retention of conventional composite resin. The heating procedure during setting of GIC sealants cannot be recommended as routine treatment in clinical practice.