RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Pit and fissure sealants are the most commonly used preventive measure against caries in permanent molars. Advancements in dental materials have led to the development of hydrophilic sealants. However, their clinical efficacy must be evaluated and compared with that of conventional hydrophobic sealants. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to clinically evaluate and compare the retention, marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration of hydrophilic and hydrophobic pit and fissure sealants over a 12-month follow-up period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was a split-mouth, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. A sample size calculation was performed, and 120 first permanent molars (60 in each group) were selected for inclusion in the study. According to the split-mouth design, the sample was randomly divided into 2 groups. Group A was treated with a hydrophilic sealant (UltraSeal® XT Hydro), while Group B was treated with a hydrophobic sealant (Conseal F). The sealants in both groups were applied in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions by a single operator. The sealants were evaluated clinically using visual and tactile methods by 2 independent examiners who were blinded to the procedure in accordance with the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) clinical rating system at placement and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: After 12 months of follow-up, the Conseal F sealant showed significantly better retention (p = 0.001), marginal adaptation (p = 0.023) and reduced marginal discoloration (p = 0.004) in comparison to the UltraSeal XT Hydro sealant. CONCLUSIONS: The Conseal F (hydrophobic) sealant demonstrated superior retention, marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration compared to the UltraSeal XT Hydro (hydrophilic) sealant.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage of bioactive, ormocer, and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorative materials in primary molars. In this study, class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 75 noncarious extracted primary molars. The teeth were then restored as per the groups assigned. Group A, group B, and group C used bioactive restorative materials, ormocer restorative materials, and conventional GIC restorative materials for restorations, respectively. The teeth were then thermocycled and subjected to microleakage analysis via dye penetration. The microleakage scores were compared for differences using the Kruskal-Wallis test. This was followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using the Dunn test. All testing was carried out using a 'p' value of <0.05. The percentage of samples showing microleakage score 0 depicting no dye penetration was highest for group A (56%) followed by group C (44%) and group B (12%). Statistical analysis revealed highest microleakage with group B, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Microleakage was evident in all the materials tested. The lowest microleakage was seen with bioactive restorative material.

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: Control of pain during dental treatment is an essential aspect of pediatric dentistry. AIMS: This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine buccal infiltration with 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for primary mandibular molar extractions. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: The study was a prospective, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Bilateral symmetrical carious primary mandibular molar (n = 92) extractions in 46 healthy children aged 5-10 years were included in this randomized controlled trial. Extraction was performed on one side using 4% of articaine buccal infiltration and on the contralateral side using 2% lignocaine IANB in two subsequent appointments. Pain and behavior were assessed at baseline, during injection and extraction using Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale, Modified Behavior Pain Scale (MBPS), and Frankl Behavior Rating Scale. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Values thus obtained were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance test and compared using independent samples test. RESULTS: According to MBPS, the mean value of pain experienced in the form of cry during injection was reported to be more for 2% lignocaine IANB (1.76) as compared to 4% articaine buccal infiltration (1.30), which was statistically significant (P = 0.024). Comparison of behavior depicted showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Buccal infiltration with 4% articaine can be utilized as an effective alternative to 2% lignocaine IANB for primary mandibular molar extractions.

Asunto(s)