Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ptsldigital.ukm.my/jspui/handle/123456789/475638Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | S.Nagarajan M.P. Sockalingam, Dr. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Thavamalar Marimuthoo (P57838) | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-10-05T06:40:36Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-10-05T06:40:36Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2012-12-12 | - |
| dc.identifier.other | ukmvital:80414 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://ptsldigital.ukm.my/jspui/handle/123456789/475638 | - |
| dc.description | The traditional resin-based sealant is the recommended option for pit and fissure sealing. However, the drawback of this sealant is the moisture sensitivity. Recent development of hydrophilic sealant with moisture-tolerant chemistry (Embrace WetBond) was intended to overcome this problem. However, there is inadequate evidence to support the superiority of this sealant. Thus, this study was aimed to compare the marginal leakage and penetration ability between moisture-tolerant (Embrace WetBond) and conventional (Clinpro) resin-based sealants under three different enamel surface preparations. 120, extracted, caries free premolars were cleaned and randomly divided into six groups of equal numbers. Group 1 and 2 were prepared according to Clinpro and Embrace WetBond manufacturers’ instructions respectively. Group 3 (Clinpro) and 4(Embrace WetBond) were exposed to saliva contamination prior to sealant placement. Meanwhile, in group 5 (Clinpro) and group 6 (Embrace WetBond), bur preparation were done. All the teeth were stored in artificial saliva for 1 week at 37°C and then subjected to thermocycling. Nail polish was used to coat the surface about 1mm from the sealant before immersion in 4% methylene blue. Each tooth was then embedded into acrylic resin before sectioning at two places, producing 4 sections per teeth amounting to 80 sections per group. Microleakage and unfilled surface area were then measured using a 3D optical measurement device. There was a significant difference between Clinpro and Embrace WetBond in terms of microleakage only in the bur preparation (p<0.05). No significant differences were noted for Clinpro between acid etching and bur preparation (p>0.05). Meanwhile, Embrace WetBond showed signicantly lower microleakage with bur preparation. However, both the sealants showed significantly lower microleakage in acid etch only (p<0.05) and bur preparation (p<0.05) when compared to saliva contaminated group. Therefore both sealants, regardless of whether moisture tolerant or not, are suitable for fissure sealing.,Fisur sealan conventional adalah pilihan yang disyorkan untuk rawatan pit dan fisur. Namun, fisur sealan ini sensitif terhadap kelembapan. Perkembangan terbaru, iaitu fisur sealan hidrofilik dicipta untuk mengatasi masalah tersebut. Namun, terdapat kekurangan bukti yang menyokong keunggulan fisur sealan toleransi-kelembapan ini. Maka, kajian ini dilakukan bagi tujuan membandingkan tahap kebocoran pinggiran dan keupayaan penyerapan antara fisur sealan kelembapan toleran (Embrace WetBond) dan fisur sealan konventional di bawah tiga .penyediaan permukaan enamel yang berbeza.120 batang gigi premolar tanpa karies telah dibersihkan and dibahagikan secara rawak kepada enam kumpulan.Kumpulan 1 dan 2 disediakan mengikut arahan pengilang fisur sealan Clinpro dan Embrace WetBond masing-masing. Kumpulan 3 (Clinpro) dan 4 (Embrace WetBond) pula disediakan dibawah pencemaran air liur sebelum aplikasi fisur sealan. Manakala,bagi kumpulan 5 (Clinpro) dan kumpulan 6 (Embrace WetBond) penyediaan bur dilakukan dahulu. Semua gigi disimpan dalam air liur tiruan selama 1 minggu pada suhu 37°C sebelum ditakluk pada kitaran haba. Selepas itu, gigi disapukan dengan pengilat kuku 1 mm mengelilingi fisur sealan dan direndam dalam 4% metilena biru selama 4 jam. Setiap gigi kemudian ditanam dalam resin akrilik dan dipotong kepada empat bahagian. Ini akan memberikan 80 bahagian/spesimen bagi setiap kumpulan.Analisis dan ukuran kebocoran pinggiran dan kawasan permukaan yang tidak diisi oleh fisur sealan bagi setiap spesimen dilakukan dengan alat optikal 3 dimensi. Analisis statistik menunjukkan terdapat perbezaan ketara antara Clinpro dan Embrace WetBond dari segi kebocoran dibawah penyediaan bur sahaja (p<0.05). ). Tiada perubahan ketara dapat dikenalpasti antara penyediaan acid punaran dan penyediaan bur bagi Clinpro (p>0.05). Manakala, Embrace WetBond menunjukkan kebocoran pinggiran paling rendah secara ketara dalam penyediaan bur (p<0.05). Secara kesimpulan, walaupun tidak bersifat toleransi terhadap kelembapan, kedua-dua fisur sealan ini sesuai untuk rawatan fisur sealan.,Doctor in Clinical Dentistry,The traditional resin-based sealant is the recommended option for pit and fissure sealing. However, the drawback of this sealant is the moisture sensitivity. Recent development of hydrophilic sealant with moisture-tolerant chemistry (Embrace WetBond) was intended to overcome this problem. However, there is inadequate evidence to support the superiority of this sealant. Thus, this study was aimed to compare the marginal leakage and penetration ability between moisture-tolerant (Embrace WetBond) and conventional (Clinpro) resin-based sealants under three different enamel surface preparations. 120, extracted, caries free premolars were cleaned and randomly divided into six groups of equal numbers. Group 1 and 2 were prepared according to Clinpro and Embrace WetBond manufacturers’ instructions respectively. Group 3 (Clinpro) and 4(Embrace WetBond) were exposed to saliva contamination prior to sealant placement. Meanwhile, in group 5 (Clinpro) and group 6 (Embrace WetBond), bur preparation were done. All the teeth were stored in artificial saliva for 1 week at 37°C and then subjected to thermocycling. Nail polish was used to coat the surface about 1mm from the sealant before immersion in 4% methylene blue. Each tooth was then embedded into acrylic resin before sectioning at two places, producing 4 sections per teeth amounting to 80 sections per group. Microleakage and unfilled surface area were then measured using a 3D optical measurement device. There was a significant difference between Clinpro and Embrace WetBond in terms of microleakage only in the bur preparation (p<0.05). No significant differences were noted for Clinpro between acid etching and bur preparation (p>0.05). Meanwhile, Embrace WetBond showed signicantly lower microleakage with bur preparation. However, both the sealants showed significantly lower microleakage in acid etch only (p<0.05) and bur preparation (p<0.05) when compared to saliva contaminated group. Therefore both sealants, regardless of whether moisture tolerant or not, are suitable for fissure sealing | - |
| dc.language.iso | eng | - |
| dc.publisher | UKM, Kuala Lumpur | - |
| dc.relation | Faculty of Dentistry / Fakulti Pergigian | - |
| dc.rights | UKM | - |
| dc.subject | Fissure sealant | - |
| dc.subject | Marginal leakage | - |
| dc.subject | Dissertations, Academic -- Malaysia | - |
| dc.subject | Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia -- Dissertations | - |
| dc.title | In vitro evaluation of marginal leakage and penetration ability of moisture-tolerant and conventional resin-based pit and fissure sealant: a comparative study | - |
| dc.type | Theses | - |
| dc.format.pages | 60 | - |
| dc.identifier.callno | WU190.T231i 2013 9 tesis | - |
| Appears in Collections: | Faculty of Dentistry / Fakulti Pergigian | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.