• Users Online: 512
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 80-87

Physical characteristics of two moisture tolerant fissure sealants immersed in commercial products with different pH range


1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, October University of Modern Sciences and Arts, Cairo, Egypt
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, October University of Modern Sciences and Arts, Cairo, Egypt
3 Department of Biomaterials, Faculty of Dentistry, Modern University for Information and Technology, Cairo, Egypt; Department of Cardiology and Operative Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan

Date of Submission29-Jan-2019
Date of Acceptance21-Apr-2019
Date of Web Publication23-Sep-2019

Correspondence Address:
Naglaa I Ezzeldin
Faculty of Dentistry, October University of Modern Sciences and Arts, 26 July Mehwar Road Intersection with Wahat Road, 6th of October, Cairo
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_9_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Objective
This study aimed to evaluate and compare between four physical variables (sorption, solubility, color change and fluoride release) for glass ionomer (GI) sealant against moisture tolerant resin sealant in solutions with different pH in different time intervals.
Materials and methods
Thirty discs were prepared from GI Fuji Triage and Embrace WetBond (EWB) resin sealant. Sorption, solubility and color change were measured after different time intervals (1 day, 1 week, and 1 month) of immersion of the specimens in different solution having different pH. In addition 10 disks were assessed for fluoride release of both sealants after being immersed in distilled water.
Results
EWB showed greater sorption in all media after 1 day and 1 week. GI sealant showed highest water sorption after 1 week and this sorption decreased again after 1 month. GI showed greater initial solubility in Pepsi and water after 1 day (P = 0.016). Pepsi showed higher solubility for EWB while no significant effect was found for GI with different media. The color change was greater for EWB when immersed in Pepsi and ginger. After 1-month storage, the color change was the highest specially for Pepsi for both sealants. Fluoride release was greater for GI compared to EWB.
Conclusion
Both sealants showed different physical performance depending on the type of immersion media and time period. This is expected to affect their mechanical properties and hence their clinical performance.

Keywords: dental caries, Embrace WetBond, glass ionomer, pit and fissure sealants, solubility


How to cite this article:
Ezzeldin NI, Mohamed MF, Abdou A. Physical characteristics of two moisture tolerant fissure sealants immersed in commercial products with different pH range. Tanta Dent J 2019;16:80-7

How to cite this URL:
Ezzeldin NI, Mohamed MF, Abdou A. Physical characteristics of two moisture tolerant fissure sealants immersed in commercial products with different pH range. Tanta Dent J [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Nov 17];16:80-7. Available from: http://www.tmj.eg.net/text.asp?2019/16/2/80/267569




  Introduction Top


Using pit and fissure sealants is a noninvasive procedure recommended for preventing caries development or progression in high caries risk patients [1],[2],[3]. Although pits and fissure caries has declined in high risk patients, the percentage of decrease is still less than the decrease noticed in smooth surface caries [4]. Despite the effectiveness of sealants in reducing dental caries, they are still under used [5],[6],[7]. The less frequent use of sealants may be related to; the lack of certainty about the effectiveness of the sealants particularly when placed on carious lesion, its retention rates and difficulty in managing young aged patients [8],[9],[10]. The effectiveness and retention rate of different sealants may be related to their physical properties such as sorption and solubility that may induce an interaction between dental material and oral environment [11].

Glass ionomer (GI) and resin based are major types of sealants frequently used. Their properties may be determined by; type of resin matrix, chemical composition, polymer matrix density, powder liquid ratio and presence of microvoids [12],[13],[14],[15],[16].

One of the main points of weakness for any adhesive restoration is moisture sensitivity. Achieving such requirement may be extremely difficult in some clinical situations [17] for instance; improper accessibility, uncooperative patients or early stages of erupting permanent molars [18],[19]. In addition, previous studies showed that food and beverages of different pH may induce volumetric changes such as swelling or solubility with subsequent hydrolysis affecting its survival rate in the oral cavity [20],[21].

Therefore different materials that are moisture tolerant have been developed. Embrace WetBond (EWB) is fluoride releasing light cured resin with no Bis-GMA monomer [17],[18]. Studies showed that the presence of Bis-GMA affect the degree of polymerization which in turn affect physical and mechanical properties [22],[23]. It contains multifunctional hydrophilic monomers that is activated when placed on slightly moist acid etched enamel surface [24],[25]. After curing the sealant becomes neutral reducing its solubility in water during its clinical service [26]. However there is lack of studies regarding its physical behavior especially when placed in solutions of different pH. On other hand GI has several merits over resin sealant especially when moisture isolation is difficult [27]. This is beside its fluoride release and adhesiveness to tooth structure. However its poor retention and solubility has questioned its success rate [28].

In the view of this background the present study aimed to evaluate and compare between four physical variables (sorption, solubility, color change and fluoride release) for GI sealant against moisture tolerant resin sealant in solutions with different pH in different time intervals. The tested null hypothesis was that there were no statistically significant differences between both sealants when used in different pH solutions.


  Materials and Methods Top


Specimen preparation

The composition of pit and fissure sealants used in this study is presented in [Table 1]. A total 30 discs 9 mm in diameters and 3 mm in thickness (15 discs from each fissure sealant, five specimens for each solution) were prepared using a Teflon mold. The sample size determination was based on previous studies by Abdelfattah et al. [29] and Dinakaran [30], a large effect size (f = 0.4) is expected. Using power 90% and 5% significance level total sample size of 30 discs would be sufficient. The sample size was calculated by G* power software, version 3.1.2, for MS Windows (Franz Faul, Kiel University, Germany). The specimens from both sealants were prepared according to manufacturer's instructions and condensed probably in the mold between microscopic glass slide to squeeze the excess material and obtain smooth surface. The EWB specimen was cured using Eliper LED curing light (3 M ESPE, St Paul, Minnesota, USA) for 20 s. After curing, both sides of specimens were finished using 800 grit silicon carbide abrasive paper. Additionally GI Fuji Triage specimens were coated with GC Fuji Varnish (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and the varnish cured according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Table 1: Tested fissure sealants

Click here to view


Sorption

The test was determined by the procedures described in the ADA specification no. 27 for resin-based filling materials [31]. The specimens were transferred into a glass desiccator containing dehydrated silica gel (Fischer Scientific, Leicester, UK) maintained at 37 ± 1°C and stored for 22 h then transferred to another desiccator for 2 h at 23 ± 1°C. Then the specimens were weighed using an electronic balance with four digits precision (Sartorius AG, Gottingen, Germany). These steps were repeated until constant weight was achieved ± 0.1 mg to ensure complete dehydration (original weight) in 24 h period. The specimens of each fissure sealant were divided into three groups (n = 5) immersed in 10 ml of three solutions having different pH at 37 ± 1°C. The acidic solution was Pepsi (pH 4.5) (Pepsi Cola, Cairo, Egypt S.A.E), the alkaline solution used was prepared from fresh ginger (pH 8) and the neutral solution was distilled water (pH 7). Fresh ginger was washed then softened in sterile mortar, and the homogenate was filtered by using cotton cloth. Finally the material was milled to powder by using blinder. A 20 mg of powder was added to 100 ml boiled distilled water [32],[33], the solution was cooled to 37 ± 1°C then filtered. The pH of each solution was measured by pH meter (JENAWY, Model 3505; Stone, Staffs, UK). Each specimen was immersed in 10 ml solution in separate container. The solutions were changed every day. Sorption was assessed by weight changes, which were measured at the following time intervals of immersion: after 1 day, 1 week and 1 month. Sorption was reported in weight percent. The specimens were removed from the solutions; filter paper was used for blot-drying, and then waved in air for 15 s to evacuate any visible moisture. The final wet weight was obtained after 1 min from the removal of the specimen from the solution. The final weight was measured several times until equilibrium was reached. The sorption percentage was calculated as follows [34]:



Solubility

Solubility was measured by registration of desorption of the specimens that gained solution. This was done by transferring the specimens in a firmly closed glass desiccator containing silica gel, as the methods described previously to obtain the original weight. Solubility percentage was calculated by the measurement of dehydration weight, which represents the amount of leached material from the specimens [34]:



Color change

The color of specimens was measured using a reflective micro-spectrophotometer (X-Rite, model RM200QC; Neu-Isenburg, Germany). Aperture size was set to 4 mm to be aligned with the device, while using a white background and the measurements were taken according to the CIE L*a*b* color space relative to the CIE standard illuminant D65. The color changes (ΔE) of the specimens were calculated by using the following formula [35]:



where L*=lightness (0–100), a*=change the color of the axis red/green, and b*=color variation axis yellow/blue.

Fluoride release

Five discs from each fissure sealant (5 mm diameter, 2 mm thickness) were prepared in Teflon mold. The specimens were kept to set in relative humidity 100% then immersed in a polyethylene tube containing 2 ml of deionized water. The specimens were stored in an incubator with a constant temperature of 37°C, and transferred to new tubes containing new solution every 2 days for 14 days. The released fluoride concentration was measured every 2 days using an ion meter (F-53, Horiba, Kyoto, Japan) attached to fluoride specific electrodes and reference electrodes (2060A and 8010, respectively; Horiba) that had been calibrated using standard 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, and 50 ppm fluoride solutions. Prior to measurement, Total Ionic Strength Adjustment Buffer II (Orion Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) was added to each solution (1: 1 ratio) and the fluoride electrode readings for each sample solution was recorded and converted to ppm concentration.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS (SPSS Inc., IBM Corporation, New York, USA) statistics, version 25 for Windows. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test showed a nonparametric distribution of data. Therefore, Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare between immersion media and time followed by Mann–Whitney U test for pairwise comparison. Mann–Whitney test was used to compare between tested materials. Spearman was used to correlate between tested parameters (α = 0.05).

Fluoride release data showed parametric distribution, so repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare between the different follow-up periods and tested materials. The significance level was set at P value less than or equal to 0.05.


  Results Top


EWB showed greater sorption in all media after 1 day and 1 week compared to GI but after 1 month this sorption was comparable with GI. Whereas the solubility of EWB was lower compared to GI in Pepsi and water after 1 day. Conversely GI showed greater solubility in Pepsi and water (P = 0.016) and lower sorption after 1 day and 1 week. In regard to the effect of pH, EWB showed increased sorption in all media, while GI showed increased sorption only in water. As for solubility, EWB showed increased solubility in Pepsi (P = 0.006). In contrast GI showed nonsignificant difference in solubility between the three media [Table 2], [Table 3].
Table 2: Sorption data for tested fissure sealants

Click here to view
Table 3: Solubility data for tested fissure sealants

Click here to view


The color change was greater for EWB compared to GI when immersed in Pepsi and ginger. The color change increased after 1 month for both sealants especially for Pepsi [Table 4], [Figure 1]. Sorption showed a negative correlation with solubility for both sealants. Color change showed a positive correlation with solubility and negative correlation with sorption for EWB [Table 5].
Table 4: ΔE data for tested fissure sealants

Click here to view
Figure 1: Color change for tested fissure sealants.

Click here to view
Table 5: Spearman correlation coefficient for tested parameters

Click here to view


The highest fluoride release was detected in GI for all time periods. The fluoride release for both sealants was significantly higher after 2 days followed by 4 and 6 days. This was followed by significant decrease in the subsequent periods [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Fluoride release for tested fissure sealants.

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Despite the documented efficiency of clinical guidelines for the placement of pit and fissure sealants [36],[37],[38], several studies [4],[39],[40] showed that a dispute still exists regarding the use of GI over resin based composite as fissure sealants. In addition Azarpazhooh and Main [36] recommended that sealants should be postponed if isolation cannot be achieved as this would affect the retention rate.

An attempt to solve the problem of field isolation hydrophilic resin sealant has been developed. The data available on EWB is limited particularly physical properties and its comparison to glass ionomer.

According to the present study, the null hypothesis was rejected as EWB showed increased sorption either when placed in solutions with different pH or when compared to GI Fuji Triage. The possible explanation was that water sorption took place through the intermolecular spaces of the polymeric matrix. In addition the composition of EWB may facilitate this sorption. It contains bis-methacryloyl ethyl phosphate; an acidic monomer resembling self-etch adhesives and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) which increases the wettability of the material on the tooth surface [41]. Both monomers contain polar groups (phosphate group in bis-methacryloyl ethyl phosphate and hydroxyl group in HEMA) that form hydrogen bonds with water resulting in 'bound water' that cannot be easily eliminated [42],[43]. Also it contains TMPTMA; a low viscosity monomer that contains three methacrylate groups in each molecule making it a good cross-linking agent between the polymerized chains [44]. Although it contains many double carbon bonds than monomers containing difunctional groups, such increase in double bonds may enhance the reactivity of the monomer to the surrounding media.

Sorption in polymeric material is usually complicated with solubility. However, sorption is faster than solubility; there was initial weight gain until full saturation followed by weight loss due to solubility [29]. This might explain the negative correlation found between sorption and solubility. The water sorption permits the hydrolysis of different types of bonds such as ethers, amides or ester bonds present in long polymer chain into smaller chains or individual monomers [45]. This may have led to development of internal stresses and increase the microgaps present in the polymer network allowing the free unreacted monomers and hydrolyzed components to diffuse outward into the surrounding media [46]. This can be expressed as degree of solubility. This was in agreement with Abdelfattah et al. [29] and Gavranovi et al. [47]. Concerning the effect of pH, EWB showed greater solubility in Pepsi compared to ginger and distilled water, this was in accordance with Giti et al.[48]. The acidic solution diffuses into the polymer matrix providing sufficient amount of H + ions which may induce the hydrolysis of ester group in resin matrix namely HEMA cleaving it into methacrylic acid and ethylene glycol. This allows more diffusion of water and consequently increases solubility [49].

On the other hand GI showed increased solubility in Pepsi and water compared to EWB. Regarding the effect of pH, the solubility of GI was nonsignificant in the three media.

GI Fuji Triage was chosen in this study since it showed higher degree of conversion compared to other resin base materials [50]. It is of low viscosity which may improve its penetration into pit and fissure thus improving its adaptation [51],[52]. Moreover, Triage showed high fluoride release [50],[53] that may be effective in protecting enamel against demineralization [54].

The disintegration of GI in different immersion solutions take place in three steps [55]: superficial surface wash off followed by water diffusion into the GI. This is proceeded by the outward diffusion of the dissolved components into the surrounding media causing surface corrosion [56]. The surface wash off can be credited for the high level of fluoride release. This was in consistent with fluoride release measurement in the present study. GI reported a significant higher fluoride release compared to EWB. This was inconsistent with Neelakantan et al. [57] and Markovic et al. [58]. In addition the high fluoride release was noticed during the first 6 days in particular at the first 2 days due the phenomena of 'burst effect' followed by slower fluoride release. This finding was in agreement with Poggio et al. [53] and Attar and Turgut [59]. This phenomena may have occurred in the three media which might explain the nonsignificant difference in solubility between them. The greater solubility of GI in Pepsi and water when compared to EWB at first day may be related to two factors; the varnish used for coating the GI samples is composed of isopropyl acetate which is moderately soluble in water enhancing the release of different ions [60]. Secondly, to neutralize the acidity of the surrounding media multiple ions such as fluoride and calcium may be released [61].

The sorption in GI was lower than EWB which may be contributed to the difference in the composition. GI showed a large numbers of cross-links between the polymers chains, these cross-links reduced the spaces and water flow inside the materials at first days [62],[63]. However the outward diffusion of ions, created pores within the GI allowing inward diffusion of different components from the surrounding media [64]. This was in agreement with the negative correlation between sorption and solubility found in this study and also contribute to the increased water sorption of GI after 1 week compared to Pepsi and ginger. Incorporation of water into GI can occur through several sites such as reaction with Si-O-Si units at the surface of glass particles leading to formation of -Si-OH group [15] or the exchange that may take place between fluoride ion and the hydroxyl group from the surrounding aqueous media [65]. In addition water has low osmotic pressure compared to the ginger solution and high sugar content of Pepsi [63],[66], thus increasing water sorption. These results were agreed by Lima et al.[63] In contrast Dinakaran [30] revealed that the solubility of the GI increased in acidic media and showed high sorption at all storage media. In Dinakaran [30] study GI was used in powder and liquid form rather than capsules. The procedure of mixing may produce air voides which increase moisture sensitivity. In addition sorption and solubility were measured after 7 days rather than 1 day as in the present study. In the present study, the less sorption noticed in Pepsi may also be related to chelation of phosphoric acid in Pepsi with calcium in GI forming insoluble complexes [67]. In addition the polyacrylic acid polymers in GI may have selective permeability for the diffusion of alkaline media [68].

Color change can be used as indicator for external or internal changes taking place within the restorative materials [69]. When the color change is greater than 3.3 it becomes detectable by human eye [70],[71]. In this study the color change for both sealants ranged between 3.3 up to 20. The greater color change detected in EWB in alkaline or acidic media may be related to the increase in H + or OH ions causing the degradation of different components or silane interface leading to subsurface damage. This was followed by leaching out of hydrolyzed components creating voids allowing diffusion of different stains [69],[72]. This may also explain the positive correlation found between solubility and color change. This was in agreement with Gavranovi et al. [47]. Moreover, the low filler content and incomplete degree of conversion exhibited in EWB may facilitate the passage of discoloring agents leading to greater color change [41],[73]. This was disagreed by Moon et al. [74] as they showed lower color change in alkaline and acidic media. The difference may be related to the use of different immersion media and different type of resin composite.

Concerning GI, acidic solution had greater impact on color change compared to ginger and distilled water. This finding was in agreement with Gondim et al.[67] and Ahmed and Sajjan [75]. The H + ions diffuses into the polymer matrix of GI causing the release of metal ions that are cross linked with carboxyl group [55]. This structural change may create components with different refractive indexes affecting the pattern of light reflection [76]. In conclusion, EWB did not show any superiority over GI at different pH solutions or periods. At the same time the greater fluoride release from GI can be more beneficial to the surrounding environment.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Castillo B, Borges D, Souza EJ, Catelan A, Alexandre L, Sartini M. Can extended photoactivation time of resin-based fissure sealer materials improve ultimate tensile strength and decrease water sorption/solubility ? Eur J Dent 2012; 6:402–407.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Feigal R, Gooch B, Ismail A, Kohn W, Siegal M, Simonsen R. Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139:257–268.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Lekic PC, Deng D, Brothwell D. Clinical evaluation of sealants and preventive resin restorations in a group of environmentally homogeneous children. J Dent Child 2006; 73:15–19.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Wright JT, Crall JJ, Fontana M, Gillette EJ, Novy BB, Dhar V, 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; 147:672–682.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
San-Martin L, Ogunbodede EO, Kalenderian E. Review article. A 50-year audit of published peer-reviewed literature on pit and fi ssure. Acta Odontol Scand 2013; 71:1356–1361.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Govindaiah S, Bhoopathi V. Dentists' levels of evidence-based clinical knowledge and attitudes about using pit-and-fissure sealants. J Am Dent Assoc 2014; 145:849–855.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Wright JT, Tampi MP, Graham L, Estrich C, Crall JJ, Fontana M, et al. Sealants for preventing and arresting pit-and-fissure occlusal caries in primary and permanent molars. Pediatr Dent 2016; 38:282–294.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Martin L, Huertos-Marchante A, Galvan-Martos J, Rodriguez-Lozano FJ. Dental sealant knowledge, opinion, values and practice of Spanish dental hygienists. Int J Dent Hyg 2017; 15:46–52.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Lin TH, Hsieh TY, Horowitz AM, Chen KK, Lin SS, Lai YJ, et al. Knowledge and practices of caries prevention among Taiwanese dentists attending a national conference. J Dent Sci 2010; 5:229–236.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Folke BD, Walton JI, Feigal RJ. Occlusal sealant success over ten years in a private practice: comparing longevity of sealants placed by dentists, hygienists, and assistants. Pediatr Dent 2004; 26:426–432.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Archegas LRP, Caldas DBM, Rached RN, Vieira S, Souza EM. Sorption and solubility of composites cured with quartz-tungsten halogen and light emitting diode light-curing units. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9:73–80.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Zanchi CH, Ogliari FA, Marques E, Silva R, Lund RG, Machado HH, et al. Effect of the silane concentration on the selected properties of an experimental microfilled composite resin. Appl Adhes Sci 2015; 27:1–9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Petropoulou A, Vrochari AD, Hellwig E, Stampf S, Polydorou O. Water sorption and water solubility of self-etching and self-adhesive resin cements. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114:674–679.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Mortier E, Gerdolle DA, Jacquot B, Panighi MM. Importance of water sorption and solubility studies for couple bonding agent-resin-based filling material. Oper Dent 2004; 29:669–676.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 2016; 7:1–15.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials (Basel) 2010; 3:76–96.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Konde S, Raj S, Kumar N, Bhat P. Moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant: a boon. Contemp Clin Dent 2013; 4:343–348.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
18.
Askarizadeh N, Heshmat H, Zangeneh N. One-year clinical success of embrace hydrophilic and helioseal-f hydrophobic sealants in permanent first molars : a clinical trial. J Dent (Tehran) 2017; 14:92–99.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S. Evaluation of shear bond strength, penetration ability, microleakage and remineralisation capacity of glass ionomer-based fissure sealants. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2016; 17:17–23.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Bagheri R, Burrow MF. Comparison of the effect of storage media on hardness and shear punch strength of tooth-colored restorative materials. Am J Dent 2007; 20:329–334.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Hamouda IM. Effects of various beverages on hardness, roughness, and solubility of esthetic restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011; 23:315–322.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Gajewski VE, Pfeifer CS, Fróes-Salgado NR, Boaro LC, Braga RR. Monomers used in resin composites : degree of conversion, mechanical properties and water sorption/solubility. Braz Dent J 2012; 23:508-514.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Kane B, Karren J, Garcia-Godoy C, Garcia-Godoy F. Sealant adaptation and penetration into occlusal fissures. Am J Dent 2009; 22:89–91.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Ku J, Lee J, Ra J. In vitro evaluation of microleakage and penetration of hydrophilic sealants applied on dry and moist enamel. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent 2017; 44:272–279.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Schlueter N, Klimek J, Ganss C. Efficacy of a moisture-tolerant material for fissure sealing: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17:711–716.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Ferraz I, Galo R, Nelson-Filho P, Borsatto C. Bond strength of a bisphenol- a-free fissure sealant with and without adhesive layer under conditions of saliva contamination. Braz Dent J 2016; 27:309–312.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Subramaniam P, Jayasurya S, Babu KLG. Evaluation of glass carbomer sealant and a moisture tolerant resin sealant. A comparative study. Int J Dent Sci Res 2015; 2:1–8.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Antonson SA, Antonson DE, Brener S, Crutchfield J, Larumbe J, Michaud C, et al. Twenty-four month clinical evaluation of fissure sealants on partially erupted permanent first molars: glass ionomer versus resin-based sealant. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143:115–122.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Abdelfattah M, Elmotayam KM, Elbardissy A. Clinical and laboratory assessment of a moisture tolerant, resin-based pit and fissure sealant. Egypt Dent J 2013; 59:509–518.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Dinakaran S. Sorption and solubility characteristics of compomer, conventional and resin modified glass – ionomer immersed in various media. J Dent Med Sci 2014; 13:41–45.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Walton JI, Feigal RJ. ISO 4049. Dentistry – polymer-based filling, restorative and luting materials. J Dent 2009; 37:7–13.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Sa'ada MM, Khattab NM, Ali AM. antibacterial activity of ginger extract on selected oral pat hogens (an antibacterial activity of ginger extract on selected oral pathogens). An in vitro study. Egypt Dent J 2016; 61:0–10.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Bayindir F, Kürklü D, Yanikoğlu ND. The effect of staining solutions on the color stability of provisional prosthodontic materials. J Dent 2012; 40:41–46.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Gonulol N, Ozer S, Sen Tunc E. Water sorption, solubility, and color stability of giomer restoratives. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015; 27:300–306.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Johnston WM. Color measurement in dentistry. J Dent 2009; 37:2–6.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Azarpazhooh A, Main PA. Pit and fissure sealants in the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review. J Can Dent Assoc (Tor) 2008; 74:171–177.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Tellez M, Gray Sl, Gray S, Lim S, Ismail Al. Sealants and dental caries: dentists' perspectives on evidence-based recommendations. J Am Dent Assoc 2011; 142:1033–1040.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Riley JI, Gordan VV, Rindal DB, Fellows JI, Ajmo CT, Amundson C et al. Preferences for caries prevention agents in adult patients: findings from the dental practice-based research network. Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol 2010; 38:360–370.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S, Bezerra AC, Leal SC. Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: a meta analysis. J Oral Sci 2009; 51:373–382.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Alirezaei M, Bagherian A, Shirazi AS. Glass ionomer cements as fissure sealing materials: yes or no?: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2018; 149:640–649.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Eliades A, Birpou E, Eliades T, Eliades G. Self-adhesive restoratives as pit and fissure sealants: a comparative laboratory study. Dent Mater 2013; 29:752–762.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Ito S, Hashimoto M, Wadgaonkar B, Svizero N, Carvalho M, Yiu C, et al. Effects of resin hydrophilicity on water sorption and changes in modulus of elasticity. Biomaterials 2005; 26:6449–6459.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Bociong K, Szczesio A, Sokolowski K, Domarecka M, Sokolowski J, Krasowski M, et al. The influence of water sorption of dental light-cured composites on shrinkage stress. Materials (Basel) 2017; 10:1–14.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Kawai K, Iwami Y, Ebisu S. Effect of resin monomer composition on toothbrush wear resistance. J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25:264–268.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Santerre JP, Leung BW. Relation of dental composite formulations to their degradation and the release of hydrolyzed polymeric-resin-derived products. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2001; 12:136–151.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Misilli T, Gönülol N. Water sorption and solubility of bulk-fill composites polymerized with a third generation LED LCU. Braz Oral Res 2017; 31:1–8.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Gavranovi A, Ajanovi M, Kora S, Zukić S, Strujić-Porović S, Kamber-Ćesir A, et al. Evaluation of the water sorption of luting cements in different solutions. Acta Med Acad 2017; 46:124–132.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Giti R, Vojdani M, Abduo J, Bagheri R. The comparison of sorption and solubility behavior of four different resin luting cements in different storage media. J Dent (Shiraz, Iran) 2016; 17:91–97.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Ertaş E, Güler Au, Yücel Ac, Köprülü H, Güler E. Color stability of resin composites after immersion in different drinks. Dent Mater J 2006; 25:371–376.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Kuşgöz A, Tüzüner T, Ulker M, Kemer B, Saray O. Conversion degree, microhardness, microleakage and fluoride release of different fissure sealants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2010; 3:594–599.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Markovic D, Petrovic B, Peric T, Miletic I, Andjelkovic S. The impact of fissure depth and enamel conditioning protocols on glass-ionomer and resin-based fissure sealant penetration. J Adhes Dent 2011; 13:171–178.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Simonsen RJ, Neal RC. A review of the clinical application and performance of pit and fissure sealants. Aust Dent J 2011; 56:45–58.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Poggio C, Andenna G, Ceci M, Beltrami R, Colombo M, Cucca L. Fluoride release and uptake abilities of different fissure sealants. J Clin Exp Dent 2016; 8:284–209.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Alsaffar A, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Beiraghi S. Protective effect of pit and fissure sealants on demineralization of adjacent enamel. Pediatr Dent 2011; 33:491–495.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Fukazawa M, Matsuya S, Yamane M. The mechanism for erosion of glass-ionomer cements in organic-acid buffer solutions. J Dent Res 1990; 69:1175–1179.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Potin-Gautier M, Dupuis V, Castetbon A, Moya F. Solubility and disintegration of a glass ionomer cement. Chem Spec Bioavailab 1997; 9:95–99.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Neelakantan P, John S, Anand S, Sureshbabu N, Subbarao C. Fluoride release from a new glass-ionomer cement. Oper Dent 2011; 36:80–85.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Markovic DL, Petrovic BB, Peric TO. Fluoride content and recharge ability of five glassionomer dental materials. BMC Oral Health 2008; 8:1–9.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Attar N, Turgut MD. Fluoride release and uptake capacities of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Oper Dent 2003; 28:395–402.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Qi W, Malone MF. Semibatch reactive distillation for isopropyl acetate synthesis. Ind Eng Chem Res 2011; 50:1272–1277.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Kakuda S, Sidhu SK, Sano H. Buffering or non-buffering; an action of pit-and-fissure sealants. J Dent 2015; 43:1285–1289.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Cornea D, Silaghi-Dumitrescu L, Balazsi R, Oprean R, Dudea D, Moldovan M. The study of pit and fissure sealants concerning water sorption and solubility. Stud Univ Babes-Bolyai Chem 2016; 61:239–248.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Lima R, Farias F, Andrade A, SilvaA, Duarte R. Water sorption and solubility of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment considering the time and the pH of the storage solution. Rev Gaúch Odonto 2018; 66:29–34.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Mousavinasab SM, Meyers I. Fluoride release by glass ionomer cements, compomer and giomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2009; 6:75–81.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Hammouda IM, Alwakeel EE. Effect of water storage on fluoride release and mechanical properties of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer). J Biomed Res 2011; 25:254–258.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Feldman M, Barnett C. Relationships between the acidity and osmolality of popular beverages and reported postprandial heartburn. Gastroenterology 1995; 108:125–131.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Gondim BLC, Medeiros IC, Costa BP, Carlo HL, Santos RL, Carvalho FG. Effects of erosive challenge on the morphology and surface properties of luting cements. Rev Odontol da UNESP 2016; 45:103–109.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Nicholson JW. The physics of water sorption by resin-modified glass-ionomer dental cements. J Mater Sci Med 1997; 8:691–695.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Arregui M. Six-month color change and water sorption of 9 new-generation flowable composites in 6 staining solutions. Braz Oral Res 2016; 30:1–12.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Aldharrab A. Effect of energy drinks on the color stability of nanofilled composite resin. J Conter Dent Pract 2013; 14:704–711.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Sano MFH. Change of color and translucency by light curing in resin composites. Oper Dent 2006; 31:598–603.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Prakki A, Cilli R, Francisco R, Mondelli L, Pereira C, Kalachandra S. Influence of pH environment on polymer based dental material properties. J Dent 2005; 33:91–98.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Tekçe N. The effect of different drinks on the color stability of different restorative materials after one month. Restor Dent Endod 2015; 40:255–261.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Moon J, Son S, Jung K, Kwon Y, Park J. Effect of immersion into solutions at various pH on the color stability of composite resins with different shades. Restor Dent Endod 2015; 40:270–275.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Ahmed K, Sajjan G. Color stability of ionomer and resin composite restoratives in various environmental solutions: an invitro reflection spectrophotometric study. J Conserv Dent 2005; 8:45–51.  Back to cited text no. 75
  [Full text]  
76.
Salgado VE, Cavalcante LM, Moraes RR, Davis HB, Ferracane JL, Schneider LF. Degradation of optical and surface properties of resin-based composites with distinct nanoparticle sizes but equivalent surface area. J Dent 2017; 59:48–53.  Back to cited text no. 76
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed212    
    Printed22    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded34    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]