Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: The role of sealants for pits and fissures has been emphasized in caries prevention. Considering the advantages of a surface sealer and the effects of its application over restorative materials; the study is aimed at evaluating two pit and fissure sealants with a nanofilled resin coating.
Materials And Methods: In this double-blinded study, a total of 60 caries-free extracted third molars were collected and divided into two groups of 30 each receiving either a resin-based sealant (Helioseal F) or a glass ionomer-based sealant (GC Fuji VII). Each sample was then applied with GCoat Plus surface sealer. 15 samples each containing GC Fuji VII and 15 containing Helioseal F were then subjected to wear. Another 15 samples of GC Fuji VII and 15 of Helioseal F were subjected to compressive load.
Results: On assessing the wear strength, the weight loss in group I (resin sealant with surface sealer) was 1.73 ± 0.50 (μg) which was statistically significant ( = 0.023). There was no significant difference in comparing the wear depth between both groups. There was a high statistically significant difference when assessing the compressive strength, group II (glass ionomer sealant with surface sealer) had 3566.4 ± 757 (μm) when compared to group I (resin sealant with surface sealer) 1568.53 ± 680 ( ≤ 0.01).
Conclusion: Sealants are known for their poor retention and keeping that in mind we designed this study to evaluate the physical properties of sealants with a resin coating over them. Within the limitations of this study, the conclusions are glass ionomer sealant showed greater resistance to wear when compared to the resin-based sealant and the resin-based sealant showed higher compressive strength values than the glass ionomer sealant.
How To Cite This Article: Gunasekaran R, Sharmin D, Baghkomeh PN, Comparative Evaluation of Wear Strength and Compressive Strength of Two Pit and Fissure Sealants with a Nanofilled Resin Coating: An Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(1):31-35.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10978498 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2726 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!