COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, SURFACE ROUGHNESS, AND ANTIBACTERIAL ACTIVITY OF THREE TYPES OF PIT ANDFISSURE SEALANTS(AN IN VITRO STUDY)

1. BY:
RUHEYZA SHWAN SHAHSWAR
B.D.S.
SUPERVISED BY:
Asst. Prof. Dr. SAZAN S. SALEEM
B.D.S., MSc, PhD
2/26/2019 1

2. Master Thesis Contents:
Introduction
Ch1-Review of Literature
Ch2-Materials & Methods
Ch3-Results
Ch4-Discussion
Ch5-Conclusions & Recommendations
References
2/26/2019 2

3. Tooth decay - second most frequent and widespread disease.
90% of caries - on occlusal surface of posterior teeth.
Methods to prevent dental caries:
• Chemical method
• Nutritional method
• Mechanical method - Pit and fissure sealants
2/26/2019 3

4. Sealants materials are acting
as a barrier to prevent
cavities, usually applied to the
chewing surfaces of the back
teeth (premolars and molars)
where decay occurs most
often.
2/26/2019 4
Fissure Sealant
Sealed Tooth

5. • Mechanical properties of PFS must strong enough to
withstand the mastication load.
• Surface properties of materials.
• Interaction of sealant materials with micro-organisms.
2/26/2019 5
As to the researchers knowledge till now, there are no available documents
on the comparing the compressive strength, surface roughness and
antibacterial activity against Streptococcus mutans bacteria for three
different types of fissure sealant materials selected for the present study.

6. RMGI (Photac-Fil
quick applicap)
2/26/2019 6
Compomer
(Compoglass F) PFS
Resin-based
(UltraSeal XT hydro)

7. • 1905: Miller- application of silver nitrate
• 1923: Hayat –placing a small amalgam restoration before caries develop
(Prophylactic odontomy).
• 1929: Bodecker-fissure eradication by modifying deep fissure in to self cleansable
(Enameloplasty).
• 1955: Bounocore- acid etch and bonding.
• 1962: Bowen – BIS-GMA-base resin for sealants
• 1971: First pit and fissure sealants named Nuvaseal.
• 1974: Glass ionomer pit and fissure sealants introduce by McLean and Wilson
2/26/2019 7

8. 2/26/2019 8

9. Cildir and Sandalli (2007) - Compressive strength value of resin-based fissure
sealants were significantly higher than GI cements.
Arslanoglu (2016) - The surface of resin-based (Teethmate F1) was the roughest
and Ultraseal XT hydro has the smoothest surface.
Kumar (2010) – Resin-based sealants showed more antibacterial property
compared to GIC.
2/26/2019 9

10. 2/26/2019 10

11. PFS Type
Brand
Name
Manufacturer Color
Expire
Date
Filler Wt.
%
Mean
Filler Size
µm
Composition
RMGI
Photac-Fil
Quick
Applicap
3M ESPE,
Deutschland
A3 12/2018 76-77 5-7
Powder: (Na, Ca, Al, La Fluorosilicate Glass),
activator (amin).
Liquid: monomer, oligomer, copolymer of
acrylic and maleic acid, HEMA, water.
Resin-Based
UltraSeal XT
hydro
Ultradent,
Douth Jordan,
UT, USA
Opaqu
e
White
4/2019 53 <0.001- >1
Filler: Al2O3<0.4%wt, TiO2<0.3%wt,
Na2PO3F<0.2% wt.
Matrix: Triethylene Glyol Dimetharrylate
(TEGDMA)<20%wt
Diurethane Dimethacrylate
(DUDMA)<8%wt, Methacrylicacid
(MAA)<1%wt
Compomer
Compoglass
F
Ivoclar
Vivadent
Schaan,
Liechtenstein
A2 3/2020 80.5 0.2-3
Filler: Yetterbium Trifluoride, Ba-Al-
Fluorosilicate Glass and Spheroid mixed
oxide 80%wt, initiators, stabilizers and
pigments <0.20%wt.
Matrix: Dimethacrylate 19.30%wt.
2/26/2019 11

12. PIT & Fissure Sealants Tests
C-Compressive
Strength Test
30 Specimens
Group C-G
RMGI-
Photac-Fil
Quick
Aplicap
10
Specimens
Group C-R
Resin
Based
UltraSeal
XT hydro
10
Specimens
Group C-C
Compomer
Sealant
Compoglass
F
10
Specimens
R-Surface Roughness
Test
30 Specimens
Group R-
G
RMGI-
Photac-Fil
Quick
Aplicap
10
Specimen
s
Group R-R
Resin
Based
UltraSeal
XT hydro
10
Specimens
Group R-C
Compomer
Sealant
Compoglass
F
10
Specimens
A-Antibacterial
Activity Test
30 Specimens
Group A-G
RMGI-
Photac-Fil
Quick
Aplicap
10
Specimens
Group A-R
Resin
Based
UltraSeal
XT hydro
10
Specimens
Group A-C
Compomer
Sealant
Compoglass
F
10
Specimens
2/26/2019 12

13. 2/26/2019 13
4×6mm (d×h)Matrix strip secures on
glass slide.
Mold filled with tested
material 3 layers each with
2 mm thickness
Incubation at 37oC for 24
hours
Thirty prepared specimens
a) Group C-G
b) Group C-R
c) Group C-C.

14. • Universal mechanical testing machine.
• Specimens under axial centric load and
its failure mode.
• Calculation of compressive strength
• Numerical methods (FE modelling and
simulation).
2/26/2019 14

15. Metal stamp–mold maker (8×2mm)
Cavity-mold
2×8mm
Cold cure
acrylic resin
PVC Tube
20×25mm
Metal stamp
mold maker
2/26/2019 15
Cavity filled with tested
materials and polymerization.

16. • Holding the specimen at zero angled horizontal
plane.
• Roughening with disc under weight.
• Specimens ultrasonically cleaned and incubated
in distilled water at 37oC for 24 hours.
• Thirty prepared specimens of materials.
2/26/2019 16

17. • Tylor Hobson
Roughness Profilometer.
2/26/2019 17
• Specimen Testing.
• Calibration.

18. Swab specimen grown
on chocolate agar and
incubated at 37 oC for
24 hours
Swab specimens
from excavated soft
carious teeth
G+ve diplococci –initial
diagnostic criteria for
Streptococcus mutans
Vitek 2
compact device
Vortex Mixer
Densicheck for
turbidity of the
inoculum
Vitek kits in
special cassette
colonies of viridans
Streptococci
Selected micro-
organism 95%
Streptococcus
Mutans
Cassette in Vitek 2
chamber for 8 hours2/26/2019 18

19. Streaking the swab
over the entire sterile
blood agar
2/26/2019 19
Discs placement in blood
agar
Incubated at 37 oC for 24 hours

20. 2/26/2019 20

21. 2/26/2019 21

22. Test
Material
Variable
(I)
Material
Variable
(J)
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Tukey
HSD
C-G
C-R -141.400* 9.843 0.000 -165.80 -117.00
C-C -79.700* 9.843 0.000 -104.10 -55.30
C-R
C-G 141.400* 9.843 0.000 117.00 165.80
C-C 61.700* 9.843 0.000 37.30 86.10
C-C
C-G 79.700* 9.843 0.000 55.30 104.10
C-R -61.700* 9.843 0.000 -86.10 -37.30
Search of the
reason
More Effect on
Significance
2/26/2019 22

23. 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
C-G
Photac Fil
C-R
Ultraseal XT
hydro
C-C
Compoglass F
122
264
202
263
570
436
CompressiveStrength,MPa
Material GroupStatically Analysis FEA
2/26/2019 23

24. 2/26/2019 24
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
C-G
Photac Fil
C-R
Ultraseal XT
hydro
C-C
Compoglass F
122.02±18.03
263.80±19.28
202.10±27.51
CompressiveStrength,MPa
Material Group

25. Material
Group
N
Mean
µm
Std.
Dev.
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Min Max
Lower Bound
Upper
Bound
R-G 10 1.382 0.133 0.04211 1.287 1.477 1.24 1.6
R-R 10 0.071 0.0185 0.00586 0.0577 0.0843 0.04 0.09
R-C 10 1.229 0.125 0.03954 1.14 1.32 1.05 1.48
2/26/2019 25

26. Test
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Squar
e
F Sig.
Between Groups 10.277 2 5.138 457.372 0.000
Within Groups 0.303 27 0.011
Total 10.580 29
Test
Materi
al
Variabl
e (I)
Materia
l
Variable
(J)
Mean
Differen
ce (I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Tukey
HSD
R-G
R-R 1.31100* 0.0474 0.000 1.1935 1.4285
R-C .15300* 0.0474 0.009 0.0355 0.2705
R-R
R-G
-
1.31100*
0.0474 0.000 -1.4285 -1.1935
R-C
-
1.15800*
0.0474 0.000 -1.2755 -1.0405
R-C
R-G -.15300* 0.0474 0.009 -0.2705 -0.0355
R-R 1.15800* 0.0474 0.000 1.0405 1.2755
More Effect on
Significance
2/26/2019 26

27. • Low filler content(53%)
• Nano particles can be worn away rather
than plucking
• Large particle size (5-7 micrometer)
• High filler loading of 77% wt.
• Glass particle responsible for lower
homogeneity and rougher surface.
• Deficiency of coherence between the
matrix and fillers
Arslanoglu et al (2016).
2/26/2019 27
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
R-G-Photac Fil R-R-Ultraseal XT R-C-Compoglass
F
1.382±0.133
0.071±0.0185
1.229±0.125
SurfaceRoupgness,Ra,µm
Material Group

28. Group N
Mean
mm
Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Min Max
Lower
Bound
Upper Bound
A-G 10 7.12 .26 .081 6.94 7.30 7 8
A-R 10 5.76 .22 .069 5.60 5.92 5 6
A-C 10 6.74 .24 .075 6.57 6.91 6 7
AM 10 20.92 2.70 .855 18.99 22.85 16 25
PD 10 .00 .000 .000 .00 .00 0 0
2/26/2019 28

29. Test
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between Groups 2382.477 4 595.619 398.141 .000
Within Groups 67.320 45 1.496
Total 2449.797 49
Test
Material
Variable
(I)
Material
Variable
(J)
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Tukey
HSD
A-G
A-R 1.360 .547 .112 -.194 2.914
A-C .380 .547 .957 -1.174 1.934
AM -13.800* .547 .000 -15.354 -12.246
PD 7.120* .547 .000 5.566 8.674
A-R
A-G -1.360 .547 .112 -2.914 .194
A-C -.980 .547 .391 -2.534 .574
AM -15.160* .547 .000 -16.714 -13.606
PD 5.760* .547 .000 4.206 7.314
A-C
A-G -.380 .547 .957 -1.934 1.174
A-R .980 .547 .391 -.574 2.534
AM -14.180* .547 .000 -15.734 -12.626
PD 6.740* .547 .000 5.186 8.294
AM
A-G 13.800* .547 .000 12.246 15.354
A-R 15.160* .547 .000 13.606 16.714
A-C 14.180* .547 .000 12.626 15.734
PD 20.920* .547 .000 19.366 22.474
A-G -7.120* .547 .000 -8.674 -5.566
Search of the
reason
More Effect on
Significance
2/26/2019 29

30. • Low PH
• Presence of HEMA
• High fluoride and
Aluminium release
• Presence of TEGDMA
which promoted bacterial
colonization.
Shirani (2008).
Kumar et al (2010).
2/26/2019 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
A-G
Photac Fil
A-R
Ultraseal XT
hydro
A-C
Compoglass
F
AM
Positive
Control
PD
Negative
Control
7.12±0.26
5.84±0.22
6.74±0.24
20.92±2.70
0±0
InhibitionZoneDiameter,mm
Material Group

31. 1. UltraSeal XT hydro showed highest compressive strength value, while lowest values were found for
Photac-Fil.
2. 3D modelling and simulation showed the appearance of zones of stress concentration at the edge of
supported face.
3. The smoothest surfaces were obtained for UltraSeal XT hydro, followed by Compoglass F while
Photac-Fil had significantly rougher surface.
4. Concerning antibacterial activity test, Photac-Fil showed the most remarkable antibacterial diffuse
inhibition and UltraSeal XT hydro showed lowest antibacterial activity.
5. All the materials seem adequate to the clinical indication and can be used according to each patient
situation.
6. Dental materials specially designed for pit and fissure sealant application have particular
physicochemical characteristics that have to be taken into account by clinicians to provide adequate
preventive sealing.
7. The compressive strength is inversely proportional to both surface roughness and antibacterial
activity.2/26/2019 31

32. 1. The correlation between these in-vitro findings and the clinical performance of various
sealants has to be established in further studies.
2. Suggesting that the choice for the sealant material must be based on the characteristics of
the material, such as mechanical properties, fluoride release.
3. Studies are needed to evaluate other mechanical properties investigations such as
modulus of elasticity, flexural strength, shrinkage, ...
4. Other antibacterial activity tests are needed to be evaluated such as direct contact
inhibition by SEM, and antibacterial activity against other bacterial species and antifungal
activity.
5. Physical properties such as pH, fluoride release and recharge in material’s investigation.
6. Find the relationship between physical, mechanical, and biological properties.
2/26/2019 32

33. In this master thesis, used more than three hundred scientific
references, including books, articles, reviews, standards, theses,
dissertations, and case studies with high citation index and published
by reputable publishers such as Wiley, Elsevier, Springer,…
2/26/2019 33

34. 2/26/2019 34

35. 2/26/2019 35