Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-018-0409-x ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE Bioactive glass ceramic can improve the bond strength of sealant/ enamel? R. E. Silveira 1  · R. G. Vivanco 1  · R. C. de Morais 1  · G. Da Col dos Santos Pinto 1  · F. de C. P. Pires‑de‑Souza 1 Received: 24 October 2018 / Accepted: 11 December 2018 © European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2019 Abstract Aim Evaluate the infuence of enamel pre-treatment using Biosilicate, associated or not to other treatments; on the bond strength (BS) of pit-and-fssure sealant, with or without saliva contamination. Methods Ninety slices (4 mm × 4 mm) were obtained from 30 bovine incisors. Each slice was embedded in acrylic resin with their buccal surface exposed and polished to obtain a fat enamel surface. Half of them were contaminated with human saliva. All specimens were randomly divided into fve groups (n = 9) according to the surface pre-treatment tested: acid etch- ing (AE); AE + Biosilicate (B); AE + B + total-etch adhesive (Ad); Biosilicate; control (no treatment). Then, a 1 mm layer of sealant (Clinpro XT Varnish, 3M ESPE) was applied; and to provide support, a composite resin (Opallis, FGM) block was built up over it. Samples were thermocycled (500 cycles/5–55 °C) and sectioned obtaining sticks (1 × 1 × 10 mm) for microtensile BS testing (0.5 mm/min). Data were analysed with two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni test, p < 0.05. Failure patterns were evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Results There was no diference among contaminated and non-contaminated groups, and between non-contaminated groups (p > 0.05). When contaminated, AE + B + Ad Group showed the highest BS values, difering (p < 0.05) from B Group and Control; similar between them (p > 0.05). Cohesive fractures were found in AE + B + Ad Group, submitted or not to contamination. Conclusions Since a surface pre-treatment was used, whether Biosilicate was applied or not, the sealant/enamel BS was the same in saliva-contaminated or non-contaminated enamel. Keywords Biosilicate · Dental enamel · Fissure sealants · Bond strength Introduction Although the prevalence of dental caries has decreased over the last few decades, it continues to be one of the most com- mon diseases. Therefore, considerable research eforts have been directed towards the control and treatment of this con- dition (Barroso et al. 2005; Askarizadeh et al. 2008; Beslot- Neveu et al. 2012). Many studies have focused on occlusal caries due to the high susceptibility of pits and fssures to carious attack, and the rapid onset and progression of lesions at these sites soon after tooth eruption (Barroso et al. 2005). The occlusal sur- face morphology makes it difcult or even impossible for salivary access and fuorine compounds deposition (Bar- roso et al. 2005; Beslot-Neveu et al. 2012); as well as, for mechanical tooth cleaning, allowing plaque accumulation (Borem and Feigal 1994). The treatment with dental sealant is accepted world- wide as a good preventive strategy against caries occurence (Askarizadeh et al. 2008; Condò et al. 2014). These materi- als act as a physical barrier, sealing the interface, impeding the bacterial microleakage and their metabolic products, and thus, making it difcult for caries progression to occur at the material/tooth interface (Beslot-Neveu et al. 2012). However, one of the main limitations for the use of den- tal sealants is that they must be applied on a dry surface and free from oral fuid contamination that could diminish their retentive capacity (Tulunoglu et al. 1999). Moreover, they should preferably be applied to recently erupted teeth, * F. de C. P. Pires-de-Souza ferpanzeri@usp.br 1 Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (FORP-USP), Av. Do Café, s/n, Bairro Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP CEP 14040-904, Brazil