Letter to the Editor: Response to Dr Simonsen

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
Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Nov 28, 2017 | Posted by in Dental Materials | Comments Off on Letter to the Editor: Response to Dr Simonsen
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes