Effect of different surface penetrating sealants on the roughness of a nanofiller composite resin

This study evaluated the effectiveness of different sealants applied to a nanofiller composite resin. Forty specimens of Filtek Z-350 were obtained after inserting the material in a 6x3 mm stainless steel mold followed by light activation for 20 s. The groups were divided (n=10) according to the surface treatment applied: Control group (no surface treatment), Fortify, Fortify Plus and Biscover LV. The specimens were subjected to simulated toothbrushing using a 200 g load and 250 strokes/min to simulate 1 week, 1, 3 and 6 months and 1 and 3 years in the mouth, considering 10,000 cycles equivalent to 1 year of toothbrushing. Oral-B soft-bristle-tip toothbrush heads and Colgate Total dentifrice at a 1:2 water-dilution were used. After each simulated time, surface roughness was assessed in random triplicate readings. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at a 95% confidence level. The specimens were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after each toothbrushing cycle. The control group was not significantly different (p>0.05) from the other groups, except for Fortify Plus (p<0.05), which was rougher. No significant differences (p>0.05) were observed at the 1-month assessment between the experimental and control groups. Fortify and Fortify Plus presented a rougher surface over time, differing from the baseline (p<0.05). Biscover LV did not differ (p>0.05) from the baseline at any time. None of the experimental groups showed a significantly better performance (p>0.05) than the control group at any time. SEM confirmed the differences found during the roughness testing. Surface penetrating sealants did not improve the roughness of nanofiller composite resin.

Influence of dental materials used for sealing caries lesions on laser fluorescence measurements

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of thickness and aging on the intrinsic fluorescence of sealing materials and their ability to block fluorescence from the underlying surface as assessed using a laser fluorescence device. Cavities of 0.5 mm and 1 mm depth were drilled into acrylic boards which were placed over two surfaces with different fluorescence properties: a low-fluorescence surface, to assess the intrinsic fluorescence of the sealing materials, and a high-fluorescence surface, to assess the fluorescence-blocking ability of the sealing materials. Ten cavities of each depth were filled with different sealing materials: Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, Adper Single Bond 2, FluroShield, Conseal f and UltraSeal XT Plus. Fluorescence was measured with a DIAGNOdent pen at five different time points: empty cavity, after polymerization, and 1 day, 1 week and 1 month after filling. The individual values after polymerization, as well as the area under the curve for the different periods were submitted to ANOVA and the Tukey test (p < 0.05). At 0.5 mm, Scotchbond, FluroShield and UltraSeal showed insignificant changes in intrinsic fluorescence with aging and lower fluorescence after polymerization than Single Bond and Conseal. At 1 mm, Scotchbond and FluroShield showed the lowest intrinsic fluorescence, but only Scotchbond showed no chagnes in fluorescence with aging. At both depths, Scotchbond blocked significantly less fluorescence. All sealing materials blocked more fluorescence when applied to a depth of 1 mm. At 0.5 mm, fissure sealants blocked more fluorescence than adhesives, and did not show significant changes with aging. Scotchbond had the least affect on the fluorescence from the underlying surface and would probably have the least affect on the monitoring of sealed dental caries by laser fluorescence.