PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the shear bond strength of 2 resin-based pit-and-fissure sealants--Clinpro and Fluroshield--to saliva-contaminated and noncontaminated enamel. METHODS: Forty buccal halves of permanent molar crowns were individually embedded in polyester resin and ground with wet silicone carbide papers to obtain flat enamel surfaces. The specimens were randomly assigned to 2 groups: (A) without contamination; and (B) contaminated with 0.01 ml of fresh human saliva. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (N=10), according to the sealant applied: (1) Clinpro; and (2) Fluroshield. Shear bond strength was tested at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure mode was assessed. RESULTS: Means (MPa) were: (1) A1=7.66 +/- 3.12; A2=12.39 +/- 4.34; (2) B1=5.05 +/- 1.44; B2=10.44 +/- 2.35. Data were submitted to analysis of variance and Scheffé's statistical test (P<.05). There was a statistically significant difference (P<.05) between both the sealants and the experimental conditions analyzed. Fluroshield provided higher bond strength and was different from Clinpro (P<.05) in the absence of contamination. Within the saliva-contaminated group, however, no statistically significant difference (P>.05) was observed between the tested materials. CONCLUSIONS: It may be concluded that, under dry conditions, the filled pit-and-fissure sealant (Fluroshield) yielded better bonding performance. Salivary contamination undermined the adhesion of both materials to enamel and resulted in lower bond strengths.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the shear bond strength of 2 resin-based pit-and-fissure sealants--Clinpro and Fluroshield--to saliva-contaminated and noncontaminated enamel. METHODS: Forty buccal halves of permanent molar crowns were individually embedded in polyester resin and ground with wet silicone carbide papers to obtain flat enamel surfaces. The specimens were randomly assigned to 2 groups: (A) without contamination; and (B) contaminated with 0.01 ml of fresh human saliva. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (N=10), according to the sealant applied: (1) Clinpro; and (2) Fluroshield. Shear bond strength was tested at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure mode was assessed. RESULTS: Means (MPa) were: (1) A1=7.66 +/- 3.12; A2=12.39 +/- 4.34; (2) B1=5.05 +/- 1.44; B2=10.44 +/- 2.35. Data were submitted to analysis of variance and Scheffé's statistical test (P<.05). There was a statistically significant difference (P<.05) between both the sealants and the experimental conditions analyzed. Fluroshield provided higher bond strength and was different from Clinpro (P<.05) in the absence of contamination. Within the saliva-contaminated group, however, no statistically significant difference (P>.05) was observed between the tested materials. CONCLUSIONS: It may be concluded that, under dry conditions, the filled pit-and-fissure sealant (Fluroshield) yielded better bonding performance. Salivary contamination undermined the adhesion of both materials to enamel and resulted in lower bond strengths.
Authors: H M Pushpalatha; K S Ravichandra; Koya Srikanth; G Divya; Vasanthi Done; K Bala Krishna; Vishwanath Patil Journal: J Int Oral Health Date: 2014-04-26