Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro, the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of pit and fissure sealants (PFS) after enamel conditioning with different new-generation self-etching (SE) agents; additionally, enamel etching patterns were assessed. Methods Healthy unerupted third molars surgically removed for therapeutic reasons ( n = 25p/g), were randomly assigned to six groups. Conventional etching (CE) or SE was applied prior to pit and fissure sealants bonding. Enamel conditioned surfaces were evaluated by SEM at × 500, × 1000, and × 2000 magnification to determine etching patterns. Subsequently, 25 PFS blocks (3 × 2 × 1.5 mm) p/g were bonded to enamel surface. Samples were stored in water at 37 °C for 24 h, previous to SBS and ARI test. One-way ANOVA and Tamhane statistic tests were used for SBS; while Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis were employed for ARI ( p ≤ 0.05 ). Results For SBS test, CE_PFS_3M and SE1_PFS_Shofu groups showed the lowest values (8.74 ± 4.02 and 8.75 ± 3.90, respectively). The highest scores were observed in SE_PFS_Kuraray group (13.46 ± 5.83). Significant differences in SBS and ARI assessments were found. All experimental groups showed type 1 etching pattern. Conclusion The etching pattern was less pronounced in self-etching groups, which showed an equal or superior in vitro performance compared to conventional etching agents. The clinical use of self-etching agents could be recommended before pit and fissure sealants application in new dental protocols. The best in vitro performance was observed when both applied materials, self-etching agent and pit and fissure sealant have 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate in their chemical composition.

Background. The pit and fissure areas are 8 times more vulnerable to caries; consequently, sealants have been proven to be efficient. Acid etching is the standard procedure for enamel etching; however, it leaves a demineralized surface. Laser Er:YAG is a good etching alternative due to its properties.

In vitro models are very useful in dentistry, especially to evaluate preventive methods against dental caries. Although they have been used for more than 30 years, specific demineralization models have not been established for primary enamel, which is more prone to demineralization than permanent enamel. This study evaluates porosity changes in primary enamel surface after a demineralization model through a scientifically validated analytical tool. Nine healthy human anterior primary teeth extracted for therapeutic reasons were included in this study, previous informed consent. The samples were randomly assigned to three groups n = 3: G1_2D, G2_4D, and G3_7D. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images at ×200 and ×1000 were taken during two stages: before demineralization (BD) and after demineralization (AD). Morphological characterization was observed at ×1000, while porosity (pore count and perimeter) was analyzed by the ImageJ program, using ×200 SEM images previously converted. Several statistical analyses were used to determine differences (p ≤ .05). Morphological characterization AD revealed new pits and cracks on the enamel surface in G1_2D and G2_4D groups. Localized eroded enamel areas were observed in G3_7D. Pore count of enamel surface BD ranged from 64.26 ± 37.62 to 97.93 ± 34.25 and AD ranged from 150.06 ± 64.86 to 256 ± 58.14. AD, G_4D exhibited a decrease in pore perimeter contrary to G_2D and G_7D. Significant differences were observed. Finally, morphological changes were more evident as days of demineralization increased; 7 days of immersion could be employed as an enamel erosive model. The pore count increased after the demineralization model, BD pores perimeter was heterogeneous, and AD varied according to the immersion period. Morphological changes were more evident as days of demineralization increased. Seven days of immersion could be employed as an enamel erosive model. The initial porosity seems to be a determining factor for the final porousness. The pore perimeter of the primary enamel varied according to the immersion period on the demineralization model.