Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKaraman, E.
dc.contributor.authorYazici, A. R.
dc.contributor.authorBaseren, M.
dc.contributor.authorGorucu, J.
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T14:06:29Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T14:06:29Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.issn0361-7734
dc.identifier.issn1559-2863
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.2341/11-435-C
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/15966
dc.descriptionWOS: 000316305500006en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 23092148en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the clinical performance of a pit and fissure sealant placed with the use of different enamel preparation methods, i.e. acid or Er,Cr:YSGG laser etching, over 24 months. Methods: Sixteen subjects (15 female, 1 male) with no restorations or sealant present on their fissures and no detectable caries participated. Using a table of random numbers, a total of 112 sealants (56 with acid-etching, 56 with laser etching) were placed on the permanent premolar and molar teeth. All restorative procedures except for application of the laser were performed by the same dentist. After completion of the fissure preparation either with acid or laser, the adhesive was applied; then a pit and fissure sealant, Clinpro Sealant, was placed and polymerized. Clinical evaluations were done at baseline and at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up visits by two calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which etching method had been used. The retention of sealants and caries were evaluated with the aid of a dental explorer and an intra-oral mirror. Each sealant was evaluated using the following criteria: 1=completely retained; 2=partial loss; 3= total loss. The Pearson chisquare test was used to evaluate differences in the retention rates among the sealants used with different etching methods. Results: All patients attended the 24-month follow-up visit and all sealants were evaluated (total recall rate 100%). At the end of 24 months, 83.9% of the sealants from laser group and 85.7% of those from acid-etch group were recorded as "completely retained". There were no statistically significant differences in retention rates among the preparation methods after all evaluation periods (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between the retention rates of premolar and molars at each evaluation period. No secondary caries was detected in association with any sealants. Conclusion: The clinical performance of fissure sealants placed after acid or Er,-Cr:YSGG laser etching was similar.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherOperative Dentistry Incen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.2341/11-435-Cen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.titleComparison of Acid Versus Laser Etching on the Clinical Performance of a Fissure Sealant: 24-Month Resultsen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume38en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage151en_US
dc.identifier.endpage158en_US
dc.relation.journalOperative Dentistryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record