The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison and Clinical Evaluation of Two Pit and Fissure Sealants on Permanent Mandibular First Molars: An In Vivo Study

Manjakandy Smitha, Santhosh T Paul, Tejavathi Nagaraj, Abdul R Khan, Kumaranachary Rinu

Keywords : Microfilled, Nanofilled, Pit and fissure sealant, Retention

Citation Information : Smitha M, Paul ST, Nagaraj T, Khan AR, Rinu K. Comparison and Clinical Evaluation of Two Pit and Fissure Sealants on Permanent Mandibular First Molars: An In Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (10):1151-1158.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2669

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-10-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the clinical efficacy of a microfilled pit and fissure sealant and a nanofilled pit and fissure sealant at 3, 6, and 12 months of interval. Materials and methods: Samples consisting of 55 healthy 8- to 12-year-old children with deep pits and fissures in mandibular first permanent molars were selected for the study. It was a split mouth design and randomized clinical trial. A total of 110 mandibular first molars were divided into two groups of 55 each: group I Fissurit FX sealant and group II Grandioseal nanofilled fissure sealant. The sealed teeth were clinically evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months of interval to assess marginal adaptation, sealant retention, fissure caries development, roughness of sealant surface, and change of color around the sealant. Results: The results showed that both Fissurit FX and Grandioseal pit and fissure sealants were effective in preventing dental caries. Marginal adaptation was significantly better with Fissurit FX when compared to Grandioseal pit and fissure sealant. There was no difference in sealant retention between the two groups. The surface roughness of Fissurit FX was high when compared to that of Grandioseal. Statistical analysis was done using the Chi-squared test for intra-group comparison and Fisher\'s exact test for inter-group comparison. Results were considered statistically significant if p ≤ 0.05. Conclusion: Fissurit FX and Grandioseal pit and fissure sealants provided similar caries preventive effects and there was no difference in retention of sealants over a period of 1 year. However, surface roughness was better with Grandioseal fissure sealants. Clinical significance: This study is significant because there is limited evidence about the efficacy of nanofilled pit and fissure sealants in vivo. It will also provide dental practitioners an insight into the clinical efficacy of nanofilled pits and fissure sealant when compared to micro-filled sealant enabling them to make the right choice for the betterment of their dental practice.


PDF Share
  1. Burt BA. Prevention policies in the light of the charged distribution of dental caries. Acta Odontol Scand 1998;56(3):179–186. DOI: 10.1080/000163598422956.
  2. Fejerskov O. Changing paradigms in concepts on dental caries: consequences for oral health care. Caries Res 2004;38(3):182–191. DOI: 10.1159/000077753.
  3. Leake JL. Why do we need an oral health care policy in Canada? J Can Dent Assoc 2006;72(4):317.
  4. Sardana V, Deshpande SD, et al. Missed, concealed and obscured aspects of caries prevention – Legacy for the future. Indian J Dent Sci 2011;3(2):44–49.
  5. Donna L. An overview of dental sealants. Spec suppl. issue 2001. Available from URL: http://www.rosenbergfamillydentistry.com/wpccontent/themes/sup_sealants.pdf.
  6. Backer DO. The relation between the fluoridation of water and dental caries experience. Int Dent J 1967;17(3):582–605.
  7. Carvalho JC, Ekstrand KR, et al. Dental plaque and caries on occlusal surfaces of first permanent molars in relation to stage of eruption. J Dent Res 1989;68(5):773–779. DOI: 10.1177/00220345890680050401.
  8. Hicks MJ, Flaitz CM. Epidemiology of dental caries in the pediatric and adolescent population: a review of past and current trends. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1993;18:43–49.
  9. Brown LJ, Winn DM, et al. Dental caries, restoration and tooth conditions in U.S. adults, 1988–1991. Selected findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127(9):1315–1325. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0442.
  10. Kaste LM, Selwitz RH, et al. Coronal caries in the primary and permanent dentition of children and adolescents 1–17 years of age: United States, 1988–1991. J Dent Res 1996;75(Spec No):631–641. DOI: 10.1177/002203459607502S03.
  11. Aquilar FG, Drubi-Filho B, et al. Retention and penetration of a conventional resin-based sealant and a photochromatic flowable composite resin placed on occlusal pits and fissures. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007;25(4):169–173. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.37012.
  12. Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealants. Clinical Applications of the acid etch technique, 1st ed., Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc.; 1978. pp. 19–42.
  13. Gray GB. An evaluation of sealant restorations after 2 years. Br Dent J 1999;186:569–575. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800171.
  14. Walker J, Floyd K, et al. The effectiveness of sealants in pediatric patients. ASDC J Dent Child 1996;63:268–270.
  15. Beresescu L, Pacurar M. Clinical assessment of the efficacy of two pit and fissure sealants. Acta Medic Transvilvanica Martie 2013;2(1):301–303.
  16. Dukic W, Dukic OL, et al. The influence of healozone on microleakage and fissure penetration of different sealing materials. Coll Antropol 2009;33(1):157–162.
  17. Yazici AR, Karaman E, et al. Clinical evaluation of nanofilled fissure sealant placed with different adhesive systems: 24 month results. Oper Dent 2009;34(6):642–647. DOI: 10.2341/08-097-C.
  18. Mladenovic L, Mladenovic D, et al. Clinical comparison of the quality of fissure sealing with Fissural and Ionosit seal in the observation period of upto two years. Scientific Journal of the Faculty of Medicine in Nis 2010;27(3):115–123.
  19. Futatsuki M, Kubota K, et al. Early loss of pit and fissure sealant: a clinical and SEM study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1995;19(2):99–104.
  20. Gungor HC, Altay N, et al. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite-based fissure sealant: two year results. Oper Dent 2004;29(3):254–260.
  21. Yilmaz Y, Belduz N, et al. A two-year evaluation of four different fissure sealants. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010;11(2):88–92. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262718.
  22. Irinoda Y, Matsumura Y, et al. Effect of sealant viscosity on the penetration of resin into etched human enamel. Oper Dent 2000;25:274–282.
  23. Autio-Gold JT. Clinical evaluation of a medium filled flowable restorative material as a pit and fissure sealant. Oper Dent 2002;27:325–329.
  24. Yildiz E, Dorter C, et al. A comparative study of two pit and fissure sealants: a 2 year clinical follow-up. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:979–984. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01334.x.
  25. Dhar V, Chen H. Evaluation of resin based and glass ionomer based sealants placed with or without preparation-A two year clinical trial. Pediatr Dent 2012;34:46–50.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.