Embrace sealant vs 3m clinpro sealant
Clinpro: In an in-vitro acid-demineralization model, the fluoride-containing Clinpro resin sealant produced less adjacent-enamel mineral loss than conventional nonfluoride resin sealant, while the glass-ionomer sealant produced less mineral loss than Clinpro. Pediatric dentistryEmbrace versus Clinpro: A head-to-head comparative clinical performance advantage is not established. Pediatric dentistry
Supporting sources
Inspect the exact passages
1Protective effect of pit and fissure sealants on demineralization of adjacent enamel.A. Alsaffar, D. Tantbirojn, A. Versluis, et al. · Pediatric dentistry · 2011
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study's purpose was to evaluate the in vitro effect of sealants in protecting adjacent enamel from acid demineralization. METHODS: Occlusal fissures of extracted molars (N=10) were sealed with: conventional nonfluoride (DO; Delton Opaque) resin-based sealant (RBS); fluoride-containing RBS (US; UltraSeal XT plus, and CP; Clinpro); amorphous calcium phosphate-containing RBS (BW; Bosworth Aegis); or glass ionomer sealant (FT; Fuji Triage). The specimens were immersed in lactic acid gel for 20 days to create demineralized lesions on the occlusal enamel. Cross-sectional microhardness was measured at the lesion 0.5 mm from the sealant margin. Mineral loss (ΔZ, volume % mineral x μm) was calculated from the microhardness values and subjected to analysis of variance and student-Newman-Keuls tests. RESULTS: Mineral loss values (mean ±SD) were: 1,975 ± 806, 1,802 ± 512, 1,004 ± 421, 1,275 ± 375, and 88 ± 124 for DO, US, CP, BW, and FT, respectively; ΔZ for DO and US was significantly higher, and ΔZ for FT was significantly lower than that for CP and BW (P=.05). CONCLUSIONS: Resin-based sealants containing fluoride or amorphous calcium phosphate may provide some protective effect on demineralization of adjacent enamel vs conventional nonfluoride sealant. Glass ionomer sealant was the most effective in protecting adjacent enamel from acid demineralization.
What this supports
- Clinpro: In an in-vitro acid-demineralization model, the fluoride-containing Clinpro resin sealant produced less adjacent-enamel mineral loss than conventional nonfluoride resin sealant, while the glass-ionomer sealant produced less mineral loss than Clinpro.
- Embrace versus Clinpro: A head-to-head comparative clinical performance advantage is not established.
Ask this against the live evidence.
You are reading a stored answer. Run the search yourself for the current evidence, or ask a follow-up about your case.
This answer was generated only from the cited passages. Clinical applicability has not been independently reviewed.
Use professional judgment and inspect the cited primary sources before clinical use.
Source inclusion does not imply endorsement of a clinical conclusion.
PubMed and NCBI are data sources and do not endorse this answer.
We generated this answer on .