الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 116 |  |  |
| | | from | 116 | | |
Abstract
Background: Pediatric dentists need the easiest, fastest and least painful treatments to apply on youngest children. That is one of the reasons why sealants have been evaluated on primary teeth. Also, primary teeth are more susceptible to caries because of wrong dietary habits and neglection of oral hygiene in children. Additionally, the lack of evidenced studies on primary dentition is a concern as sealants in primary teeth are progressively being recommended as part of preventive protocols for young children.Aim: This in vitro study was conducted to compare the remineralizing ability, microleakage and flexural strength of two fluoride rechargeable fissure sealants, resin-based sealant versus bioactive-based sealant in primary molars. Methods: Thirty-two extracted second primary molars were prepared and sealed with one of the following materials: BeautiSealant and Helioseal F plus. Sixteen molars were subjected to a pH-cycling model (7 days of demineralization–remineralization cycles). Scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDX) were used to assess the remineralizing abilities before and after the studied sealants applied. The other sixteen molars were subjected to a thermocycling model to assess the microleakage after sealants application. Flexural strength for each sealant material was also assessed following the ISO 4049 protocols using a Universal Testing Machine. Data were collected, tabulated then statistically analyzed using the Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) program Windows (Standard version 22). Results: After sealants application, the mean calcium weight % for the two groups of sealants was significantly increased (32.413 and 32.863) compared to the base line levels in Helioseal F plus and BeautiSealant. Similarly, the mean phosphate and fluoride weight % were significant increased (15.708, 16.607) and (13.632, 14.020) after Helioseal F plus and BeautiSealant application. The Calcium/ Phosphate ratio (Ca/P) was showed no statistically significant difference before and after Helioseal F plus and BeautiSealant application. These findings were supported by the results of the microleakage test, where no statistically significant difference was recorded between the two sealants (P =0.263). Helioseal F plus showed higher (82.562) significant difference than BeautiSealant (P = 77.374) in flexural strength test. Conclusion: The bioactive giomer glass ionomer-based sealants could be used successfully as alternative to resin-based sealants as they showed a similarity in remineralizing ability and mechanical properties.