Laser Tooth Preparation for Pit and Fissure Sealing

Yair Schwimmer, Nurit Beyth, Diana Ram, Eitan Mijiritsky and Esti Davidovich
Additional contact information
Yair Schwimmer: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, 91120 Jerusalem, Israel
Nurit Beyth: Department of Prosthodontics, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, 91120 Jerusalem, Israel
Diana Ram: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, 91120 Jerusalem, Israel
Eitan Mijiritsky: Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery and Maxillofacial Surgery Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6139001 Tel-Aviv, Israel
Esti Davidovich: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, 91120 Jerusalem, Israel

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 21, 1-11

Abstract: Objectives: Various approaches are available for pit and fissure sealing, including: the use of sealants, with or without mechanical preparation; the use of etching, with or without bonding; and the use of lasers as an alternative to mechanical preparation. The objective of this study is to evaluate pit and fissure sealing by comparing the retention and microleakage of sealants, between mechanical and Er:Yag laser enamel preparation. Methods: Sixty extracted sound third molars are classified into six groups: A, bur mechanical preparation and sealant application; B, bur mechanical preparation, etching and sealant; C, bur mechanical preparation, etching, bonding and sealant; D, laser mechanical preparation and sealant; E, laser mechanical preparation, etching and sealant application; F, laser mechanical preparation, etching, bonding, and sealant. Statistical analysis methods include Fisher’s exact test, a general linear model for one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of multiple comparisons, and Bonferroni multiple comparison tests. Results: All the groups showed dye microleakage beneath the sealants. Less microleakage was observed for those that used bur rather than laser, 41 versus 44 specimens, respectively. The number of specimens without microleakage decreased as follows: group E (24), group A (18), groups B and F (17), group C (14), and group D (5). Retention was 100% in all groups except group D. Conclusion: Mechanical preparation increases retention of sealants, especially when etching material is used; additionally, bonding can help the retention. The best technique is mechanical preparation via laser and subsequent use of etching, without bonding prior to application of the dental sealant.

Keywords: pits; fissures; sealants; lasers (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7813/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7813/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:7813-:d:434622

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().