ScholarLens Back to search
2003•PubMedRequires access

Comparative study of microleakage of a pit and fissure sealant placed after preparation by Er:YAG laser in permanent molars.

Laurence Lupi-Pegurier, Marie‐France Bertrand, Michèle Muller‐Bolla, Jean Paul Rocca, Marc Bolla

Open publisher page 27 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the microleakage of a pit and fissure sealant on enamel treated with a laser, with and without etching. METHODS: Sixty non-carious extracted molars were randomly assigned to 2 groups. For both groups, in the mesial halves, the fissures were widened mechanically with a bur and etched for 15 seconds. In group 1, the distal half was prepared with a laser alone; in group 2, a laser was followed by etching. Then the sealant was applied on all teeth. RESULTS: Laser alone showed the highest number of specimens with microleakage (63%) (P < .02) and the highest mean of microleakage (0.76 mm vs 0.12 mm, 0.17 mm, and 0.18 mm; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was noted between the 2 types of enamel preparation when etching was performed. Laser irradiation did not eliminate the need for etching the enamel surface before applying the sealant.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the microleakage of a pit and fissure sealant on enamel treated with a laser, with and without etching. METHODS: Sixty non-carious extracted molars were randomly assigned to 2 groups. For both groups, in the mesial halves, the fissures were widened mechanically with a bur and etched for 15 seconds. In group 1, the distal half was prepared with a laser alone; in group 2, a laser was followed by etching. Then the sealant was applied on all teeth. RESULTS: Laser alone showed the highest number of specimens with microleakage (63%) (P < .02) and the highest mean of microleakage (0.76 mm vs 0.12 mm, 0.17 mm, and 0.18 mm; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was noted between the 2 types of enamel preparation when etching was performed. Laser irradiation did not eliminate the need for etching the enamel surface before applying the sealant.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 27 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the microleakage of a pit and fissure sealant on enamel treated with a laser, with and without etching. METHODS: Sixty non-carious extracted molars were randomly assigned to 2 groups. For both groups, in the mesial halves, the fissures were widened mechanically with a bur and etched for 15 seconds. In group 1, the distal half was prepared with a laser alone; in group 2, a laser was followed by etching. Then the sealant was applied on all teeth. RESULTS: Laser alone showed the highest number of specimens with microleakage (63%) (P < .02) and the highest mean of microleakage (0.76 mm vs 0.12 mm, 0.17 mm, and 0.18 mm; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was noted between the 2 types of enamel preparation when etching was performed. Laser irradiation did not eliminate the need for etching the enamel surface before applying the sealant.

Key concepts: Sealant, Molar, Enamel paint, Dentistry, Materials science, Laser, Etching (microfabrication), Significant difference

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparative study of microleakage of a pit and fissure sealant placed after preparation by Er:YAG laser in permanent molars. — Research Paper | ScholarLens