OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of two sealants and two varnishes on the prevention of enamel demineralization, as well as the effect of inattentive surplus enamel-etching by a self-etching primer (SEP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sealants ProSeal and Clinpro and the varnishes Protecto and FluorProtector were investigated. For inattentive surplus enamel-etching, Transbond Plus SEP was used. The teeth (N = 75) underwent a pH-cycling for 4 weeks and were examined by weekly consecutive μCT scans (t1-t4) to determine mineral loss (ΔZ Equivalent) and lesion depth (Ld). At t4, we also assessed the fluorescence change (ΔF). RESULTS: For ProSeal, no lesions could be detected. In contrast, we found isolated lesions in the area treated with Clinpro. Teeth with inattentive surplus enamel-etching showed always a higher ΔZ Eqivalent. However, this was not statistically significantly different compared to the teeth treated with the varnishes. The adjacent untreated enamel (except the SEP-treated teeth) always showed significantly more demineralization than any of the treated areas. The ΔF partially confirmed these results. CONCLUSION: No lesions were shown in the area of application of ProSeal. The other materials did not sufficiently protect the enamel; however, a protective effect of all materials was obvious when comparing the bracket-periphery with the adjacent untreated enamel. Additionally, the area of SEP application showed almost always a significantly less demineralization in comparison to that found on the adjacent untreated enamel. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The bracket-periphery was not always sufficiently protected. The adjacent untreated enamel did not benefit from the bracket-periphery treatment.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of two sealants and two varnishes on the prevention of enamel demineralization, as well as the effect of inattentive surplus enamel-etching by a self-etching primer (SEP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sealants ProSeal and Clinpro and the varnishes Protecto and FluorProtector were investigated. For inattentive surplus enamel-etching, Transbond Plus SEP was used. The teeth (N = 75) underwent a pH-cycling for 4 weeks and were examined by weekly consecutive μCT scans (t1-t4) to determine mineral loss (ΔZ Equivalent) and lesion depth (Ld). At t4, we also assessed the fluorescence change (ΔF). RESULTS: For ProSeal, no lesions could be detected. In contrast, we found isolated lesions in the area treated with Clinpro. Teeth with inattentive surplus enamel-etching showed always a higher ΔZ Eqivalent. However, this was not statistically significantly different compared to the teeth treated with the varnishes. The adjacent untreated enamel (except the SEP-treated teeth) always showed significantly more demineralization than any of the treated areas. The ΔF partially confirmed these results. CONCLUSION: No lesions were shown in the area of application of ProSeal. The other materials did not sufficiently protect the enamel; however, a protective effect of all materials was obvious when comparing the bracket-periphery with the adjacent untreated enamel. Additionally, the area of SEP application showed almost always a significantly less demineralization in comparison to that found on the adjacent untreated enamel. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The bracket-periphery was not always sufficiently protected. The adjacent untreated enamel did not benefit from the bracket-periphery treatment.
Authors: J M ten Cate; K A Dundon; P G Vernon; F A Damato; E Huntington; R A Exterkate; J S Wefel; T Jordan; K W Stephen; A J Roberts Journal: Caries Res Date: 1996 Impact factor: 4.056