Optical analysis of the behavior of sealants under mechanical, thermal and chemical stress

Regarding their resistance five sealants were tested in vitro after experiencing mechanical, thermal and chemical stress. Included for testing were two fluoride varnishes: Fluor Protector [FP] (Ivoclar Vivadent) and Protecto CaF2 Nano One-Step Seal [PN] (BonaDent) and three fluoride-composite filled sealants (with acid etch technique): Clinpro XT Varnish [CP] (3 M Espe), Pro Seal [PS] & Light Bond [LB] (Reliance Orthodontic Products) and a positive control group [CG] Tetric EvoFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent). The sealants were applied on 180 bovine teeth (n=10/ sealer) in a standardized manner after bracket bonding. Mechanical pressure and its effect by simulating different time points and standardized electric cleaning protocol was tested first. Followed by thermal burden due to varying thermal stress and thirdly change in pH stress imitating chemical exposure were examined separately. A digital microscope and a grid incisal and apical to the brackets (n=32 fields) was used to standardize the optical analysis. Material loss due to mechanical stress compared to CG (score 0.00) was CP (1.2%), FP (21.5%), LB (22.2%) and PN (81.1%). No significant difference to CG presented PS. Material loss due to thermal stress was CP (0.5%), PS (2%), FP (2.6%), LB (3.1%) and PN (39.9%). Material loss due to chemical stress was FP (1.8%), PS (2.1%), LB (5.5%) and PN (39.6%). No significant difference to CG presented CP. Only PS and CP had optically provable, good resiliance to mechanical, thermal and chemical stress. Significantly poorer outcomes in particular showed PN.

Automated summary

This study tested five sealants for their resistance to mechanical, thermal and chemical stress, finding that PS and CP showed good resilience to these stresses while PN performed significantly worse.