Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2025

Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials
Published on: January 10, 2025
Microleakage and penetration capability of various pit and fissure sealants upon different sealant application
Apa Juntavee1, Niwut Juntavee2, Achara Chaisuntitrakoon3
1Division of Pediatric Dentistry, Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Background:
Sealant application that yields superior marginal adaptation and deeper fissure penetration potentially improves success in preventive and restorative dentistry. This study evaluated the amount of in-vitro microleakage and penetration capabilities of different pit-fissure sealants as the effect of different application techniques.
Material And Methods:
160 freshly extracted human sound premolars, assigned as suitable for sealant application, selected and allocated randomly into 8 groups (n=20 teeth/group) and applied with different sealants including Embrace-Wetbond® (E), UltraSeal XT® (U), Clinpro™ (CL), Helioseal® (H), using either conventional (C) or induced application (I). The sealed teeth were thermocycling for 500 cycles between 5°C and 55°C with 30 seconds dwelling time. The tooth was coated with 2 layers of nail varnish, leaving 1 mm around the sealant margin, then immersed in 5% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. Subsequently, 2 pieces were segmented vertically in a buccolingual direction, yielding 4 surfaces/tooth for determination of microleakage and penetration proportion of sealant with polarized light microscopy (PLM) and image-J software. ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple comparisons were determined for significant differences (α=0.05). Sealant adaptability was detected using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Results:
The highest microleakage was observed for EC, followed by CLC, HC, UC, CLI, HI, EI, and UI. The highest penetration was seen in UI, followed by HI, CLI, CLC, UC, HC, EI, and EC. ANOVA indicated significant differences in microleakage and penetration on the type of sealant and application method (p<0.05). SEM revealed that the I-application method significantly promoted less microleakage and better penetration than the C-application (p<0.05).
Conclusions:
Microleakage and penetration capabilities of sealant are greatly affected by the types of sealant and the method by which the sealant is applied. U-sealant exhibited less microleakage and better penetration capability than others. I-application reduced microleakage, promoting enhanced penetration and adaptation, is the recommended sealant application. Key words:Microleakage, penetration, dental sealant.
Related Concept Videos
Microcracking in Concrete
Pore Size Distribution
Adequate...
Permeability of Concrete
Cavity Drainage and Flashings in Masonry walls
Weep holes, strategically placed at the base of the cavity, are critical for draining accumulated water. These openings are created by leaving head...
Porosity in Cement Paste
The balance of water to cement in the mix is...
Mortar Properties

