Thank you very much for reading and analyzing our paper very carefully. We enjoyed to read your comments. Your main concerns were addressed (1) to our practice-based statement that light-polymerizing sealants can be applied “faster and less error-prone” in comparison to auto-polymerizing materials and (2) that Table 1 includes obviously miss-calculated data.
Table 1
Comparison of the clinical work flow for application of auto- and light-polymerizing sealants on permanent teeth.
| Auto-polymerizing sealant | Light-polymerizing sealant | |
|---|---|---|
| Tooth cleaning procedure | Bristle brush, air flow, etc. | |
| Isolation | Cotton rolls versus rubber dam | |
| Etching | (30–) 60 s | |
| – Saliva contamination if cotton rolls isolation are used | ||
| Material | Two components | One component |
| – Additional mixing time of ∼15 s | – No additional mixing time | |
| – Possibility of incorporating air bubbles | – Ready-to-use | |
| – Possibility of using an unbalanced base-catalyst-ratio | – Limited possibility of incorporating air bubbles | |
| Application and penetration time | ∼20 s | |
| Setting time | 60–90 s | 20 s |
| – Saliva contamination | – Saliva contamination | |
| Polishing, checking occlusion | 30–60 s | 30–60 s |
Stay updated, free dental videos. Join our Telegram channel
VIDEdental - Online dental courses
