The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Efficacy in Preventing Plaque Formation around Pit and Fissure Sealants: A Clinical Trial

Bennett T Amaechi, Hariyali Kasundra, Linda O Okoye, Phat L Tran, Ted W Reid

Keywords : Caries prevention, DenteShield™, Pit and fissure sealant, UltraSeal™ XT Plus™

Citation Information : Amaechi BT, Kasundra H, Okoye LO, Tran PL, Reid TW. Comparative Efficacy in Preventing Plaque Formation around Pit and Fissure Sealants: A Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (5):531-536.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2552

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical performance of an organo-selenium-containing pit and fissure sealant with that of a selenium-free sealant for clinical retention and prevention of plaque and caries development around the sealants. Materials and methods: Following an in vitro study confirming the antimicrobial effect of an organo-selenium-containing pit/fissure sealant [DenteShield™ (DS)], 120 adolescents (7–20 years old) at varying caries risk status had DS sealant applied to a single tooth on the left or the right side of the dentition and UltraSeal™ XT Plus (UXT) on a corresponding tooth on the opposite side. Sealants’ assessment was performed quarterly for 1 year for clinical retention, plaque, and caries formation around the sealant. Each sealant lost was replaced but considered as a failure in further analysis. McNemar's test was used to statistically analyze the outcome variables at each assessment time point. Results: While 7% and 12% plaque growth was observed around the UXT sealant at 9th and 12th months, respectively, DS exhibited 100% prevention of plaque growth. Both sealants exhibited 100% caries prevention. Clinical retention did not significantly differ between DS and UXT at all assessment time points except at 12 months when DS showed statistically significantly (p < 0.001) better retention (96%) than UXT (81%). Conclusion: In this study, while both sealants are equally effective in caries prevention, DS completely prevented plaque growth around it with better clinical retention than UXT that offered only limited protection against plaque growth. Clinical significance: Being antimicrobial, DS pit and fissure sealant may be the best sealant option for patients whose caries risk status is due to poor oral hygiene.

PDF Share
  1. Brown LJ, Selwitz RH. The impact of recent changes in the epidemiology of dental caries on guidelines for the use of dental sealants. J Public Health Dent. 1995 Dec;55(5 Spec No):274–291.
  2. Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Hiiri A, et al. Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 Oct;8(4):CD001830. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub3.
  3. Cueto EI, Buonocore MG. Sealing of pits and fissures with an adhesive resin: its use in caries prevention. J Am Dent Assoc 1967 Jul;75(1):121–128.
  4. Waggoner WF, Siegal M. Pit and fissure sealant application: updating the technique. J Am Dent Assoc 1996 Mar;127(3):351–361, quiz 391–392.
  5. Nicholson JW. Polyacid-modified composite resins (“compomers”) and their use in clinical dentistry. Dent Mater 2007 May;23(5):615–622. DOI: 10.1016/
  6. Ruse ND. What is a “compomer”? J Can Dent Assoc 1999 Oct;65(9): 500–504.
  7. Llodra JC, Bravo M, et al. Factors influencing the effectiveness of sealants – a meta-analysis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1993 Oct;21(5):261–268.
  8. Mejare I, Lingstrom P, et al. Caries-preventive effect of fissure sealants: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand 2003 Dec;61(6):321–330.
  9. Ripa LW. Sealants revisted: an update of the effectiveness of pit-andfissure sealants. Caries Res 1993 Feb;27 Suppl 1:77–82.
  10. Carlsson A, Petersson M, et al. 2-year clinical performance of a fluoride-containing fissure sealant in young schoolchildren at caries risk. Am J Dent 1997 Jun;10(3):115–119.
  11. Handelman SL. Effect of sealant placement on occlusal caries progression. Clin Prev Dent 1982 Sep–Oct;4(5):11–16.
  12. Mertz-Fairhurst EJ, Schuster GS, et al. Arresting caries by sealants: results of a clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc 1986 Feb;112(2):194–197.
  13. Grif fin SO, Oong E, et al. The ef fectiveness of sealants in managing caries lesions. J Dent Res 2008 Feb;87(2):169–174. DOI: 10.1177/154405910808700211.
  14. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention – a systematic review. PLoS One 2013 Oct 23;8(10):e77103. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077103.
  15. Hammond A, Dertien J, et al. Serum inhibits P. aeruginosa biofilm formation on plastic surfaces and intravenous catheters. J Surg Res 2010 Apr;159(2):735–746. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2008.09.003.
  16. Tran P, Hamood A, et al. Organo-selenium-containing dental sealant inhibits bacterial biofilm. J Dent Res 2013 May;92(5):461–466. DOI: 10.1177/0022034513482141.
  17. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Professionally applied topical fluoride: evidence-based clinical recommendations. J Am Dent Assoc 2006 Aug;137(8):1151–1159.
  18. Govoni M. Success with pit and fissure sealants. Dent Assist 2002 May–Jun;71(3):8–9.
  19. Heinrich-Weltzien R, Kuhnisch J, et al. Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) – a potential method for the dental practitioner. Quintessence Int 2003 Mar;34(3):181–188.
  20. Lennon AM, Buchalla W, et al. The ability of selected oral microorganisms to emit red fluorescence. Caries Res 2006;40(1):2–5.
  21. de Josselin de Jong E, Hall AF, et al. Quantitative light-induced fluorescence detection method. A Monte Carlo simulation model. In: Stookey GK, ed. Early Detection of Dental Caries: Proceedings of the 1st Annual Indiana Conference. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996. pp. 91–104.
  22. Van der Veen MH, de Josselin de Jong E. Application of quantitative light-induced fluorescence for assessing early caries lesions. In: Faller RV, ed. Assessment of Oral Health: Diagnostic Techniques and Validation Criteria. Monogr Oral Sci. Basel: Karger; 2000. 17: pp. 144–162.
  23. Seko Y, Imura N. Active oxygen generation as a possible mechanism of selenium toxicity. Biomed Environ Sci 1997 Sep;10(2–3):333–339.
  24. Babior BM, Curnutte JT, et al. Biological defense mechanisms. Evidence for the participation of superoxide in bacterial killing by xanthine oxidase. J Lab Clin Med 1975 Feb;85(2):235–244.
  25. Bortolussi R, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, et al. Relationship of bacterial growth phase to killing of Listeria monocytogenes by oxidative agents generated by neutrophils and enzyme systems. Infect Immun 1987 Dec;55(12):3197–3203.
  26. Hoepelman IM, Bezemer WA, et al. Bacterial iron enhances oxygen radical-mediated killing of Staphylococcus aureus by phagocytes. Infect Immun 1990 Jan;58(1):26–31.
  27. Kramer GF, Ames BN. Mechanisms of mutagenicity and toxicity of sodium selenite (Na2SeO3) in Salmonella typhimurium. Mutat Res 1988 Sep;201(1):169–180.
  28. Rosen H, Klebanoff SJ. Role of iron and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in the bactericidal activity of a superoxide anion-generating system. Arch Biochem Biophys 1981 May;208(2):512–519.
  29. Loyola-Rodriguez JP, Garcia-Godoy F. Antibacterial activity of fluoride release sealants on mutans streptococci. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1996 Winter;20(2):109–111.
  30. Matalon S, Slutzky H, et al. Surface antibacterial properties of fissure sealants. Pediatr Dent 2003 Jan–Feb;25(1):43–48.
  31. Naorungroj S, Wei HH, et al. Antibacterial surface properties of fluoride-containing resin-based sealants. J Dent 2010 May;38(5): 387–391. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.01.005.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.