The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Resin-based Sealants: A Clinical Study

Madhumitha Mohanraj, Rathna Prabhu, Eapen Thomas

Keywords : Caries evidence, Pit and fissure sealants, Retention

Citation Information : Mohanraj M, Prabhu R, Thomas E. Comparative Evaluation of Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Resin-based Sealants: A Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (7):812-817.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2602

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-07-2019

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


Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study is to clinically evaluate and compare the retention and evidence of caries of three fissure sealants. Materials and methods: A total of 150 children, between 7 and 13 years of age, with fully erupted permanent molars, had sealants placed using a full-mouth design. Sealant retention was evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months later. Teeth were evaluated for retention and evidence of caries using Simonsen\'s criteria and results were subjected to statistical analysis using the Chi-square test. Results: At 1-year examination, in teeth sealed with Clinpro: (a) 8% were completely retained, (b) 74.4% were partially lost, and (c) 8.5% were completely lost; with Embrace Wetbond: (a) none of the sealants were completely retained, (b) 13.1% were partially lost, and (c) 59.1% were completely lost; with Champ: (a) 1% were completely retained, (b) 71.4% were partially lost, and (c) 10.9% were completely lost. All the three sealants showed evidence of caries from 9 months. Conclusion: The retention of hydrophobic (Clinpro) sealant was superior to hydrophilic (Embrace Wetbond and Champ) sealants. The evidence of caries was less in the hydrophobic sealant group when compared with the hydrophilic sealant groups. There was no statistical difference in retention and evidence of caries between maxillary and mandibular teeth for all the three sealant groups. Clinical significance: Sealants prevent the occurrence of caries in the majority of children. Though hydrophobic sealants appear to be more successful, hydrophilic sealants too may provide promising results in the near future.


PDF Share
  1. Jaberi Ansari Z, Hashemi SM. Effect of enamel bonding agents on pit and fissure sealant retention in an isolated situation. J Dent 2008;5(4):156–160.
  2. Michael A, Ignelzi JR. Pit and fissure sealants – An ongoing commitment. J Calif Dent Assoc 2010;8(10):725–728.
  3. Nupur N, Nayak Anand U, et al. A 1-year evaluation of pit and fissure sealants on permanent first molars. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(1): 54–59. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.94547.
  4. Arzu P, Elif S, et al. Clinical performance of sealants with and without a bonding agent. Quintessence Int 2005;36(5):355–360.
  5. Stanley LH, Zia S. Michael Buonocore and the Eastman dental center: a historic perspective on sealants. J Dent Res 1996;75(1):529–534. DOI: 10.1177/00220345960750010401.
  6. Simonsen, RJ. Pit and fissure sealants. In: Clinical applications of the acid etch technique, 1st ed. Chicago, IL: Quintessence publishing Co, Inc, 1978; pp. 19–42.
  7. Howard ES, Joseph P. A unique moisture-tolerant resin based pit and fissure sealant-Clinical technique and research results. Inside Dentistry 2008;4(9):2–3.
  8. Ana Karina M, Amr MM. Use of fissure sealant retention as an outcome measure in a dental school setting. J Dent Educ 2001;65(9):861–865.
  9. Ruta B, Vytaute P, et al. A five years clinical evaluation of sealed occlusal surfaces of molars. Stomatologija: Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal 2010;12(3):87–92.
  10. William FW, Mark S. Pit and fissure sealant application: updating the technique. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127:351–361. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0205.
  11. Louise Brearley M, Hanny C, et al. The retention of pit and fissure sealants placed in primary school children by dental health services, Victoria. Aust Dent J 1997;42(4):233–239. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1997.tb00127.x.
  12. Anson RA, Full CA, et al. Retention of pit and fissure sealants placed in a dental school pedodontic clinic: A retrospective study. Pediatr Dent 1982;4:22–26.
  13. Parnell CA, Farrell MO, et al. Evaluation of a community fissure sealant programme in County Meath, Ireland. Community Dent Health 2003;20:146–152.
  14. Carlos D, Noel KC, et al. Assessment of retention rates and Clinical benefits of a community sealant program. Pediatr Dent 2005;27(3):212–216.
  15. Waggoner WF. Managing occlusal caries of young permanent molars. J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122(11):72–76. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1991.0298.
  16. Rock WP, Gordon PH, et al. The effect of operator variability and patient age on the retention of fissure sealant resin. Br Dent J 1978;145:72–75. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4804121.
  17. Walker J, Floyd C, et al. The effectiveness of sealants in pediatric patients. J Dent Child 1996;63:268–270.
  18. Francis R, Mascarenhas AK, et al. Retention and effectiveness of fissure sealants in Kuwaiti school children. Community Dent Health 2008;25:211–215.
  19. Shashikiran ND, Subbareddy VV, et al. A clinical comparison of visible light activated unfilled, fluoride and non-fluoride containing and filled fluoride containing pit and fissure sealants. J Cons Dent 2004;7:70–76.
  20. Lygidakis NA, Oulis KI. A comparison of fluoroshield with delton fissure sealant: four year results. Pediatr Dent 1999;21(7):429–431.
  21. Vineet D, Tandon S. Comparative evaluation of marginal integrity of two new fissure sealants using invasive and non-invasive techniques: a SEM study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2000;24:291–297. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.24.4.74hx7311l705213j.
  22. Simonsen RJ. Retention and effectiveness of dental sealant after 15 years. J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122(10):34–42. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1991.0289.
  23. Vineet D, Haiyen C. Evaluation of resin based and glass ionomer based sealants placed with or without tooth preparation—A two year clinical trial. Pediatr Dent 2012;34:46–50.
  24. Wendt LK, Koch G, et al. On the retention and effectiveness of fissure sealant in permanent molars after 15–20 years: a cohort study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:302–307. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2001.290410.x.
  25. Autio-Gold JT. Clinical evaluation of a medium-filled flowable restorative material as a pit and fissure sealant. Oper Dent 2002;27:325–329.
  26. Rock WP, Weatherill S, et al. Retention of three fissure sealant resins: the effects of etching agent and curing method: results over 3 years. Br Dent J 1990;168:323–324. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4807185.
  27. Handelman SL, Leverett DH, et al. Retention of sealants over carious and sound tooth surfaces. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1987;15(1):1–5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1987.tb00470.x.
  28. Prabhakar AR, Sankriti A, et al. Comparative evaluation of the length of resin tags, viscosity and microleakage of pit and fissure sealants an in vitro SEM study. Contemp Clin Dent 2011;2(4):324–330. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.91797.
  29. Morgan MV, Adams GG, et al. Assessing sealant retention using a Poisson frailty model. Community Dent Health 2005;22:237–245.
  30. Subramaniam P, Konde S, et al. Retention of a resin-based sealant and a glass ionomer used as a fissure sealant: a comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent 2008;114–120. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.43192.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.