Next Article in Journal
Factor Structure of the KABC-II at Ages 5 and 6: Is It Valid in a Clinical Sample?
Next Article in Special Issue
Use of Visual Pedagogy to Help Children with ASDs Facing the First Dental Examination: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Intranasal Midazolam for Pediatric Sedation during the Suturing of Traumatic Lacerations: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hypnosis and Sedation for Anxious Children Undergoing Dental Treatment: A Retrospective Practice-Based Longitudinal Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 9
Issue 5
10.3390/children9050646
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Assessment of Retention and Caries Protective Effectiveness of a Hydrophilic and a Conventional Sealant—A Clinical Trial

by
Liana Beresescu
,
Mariana Pacurar
,
Alexandru Vlasa
*,
Alexandra Mihaela Stoica
*,
Timea Dako
,
Blanka Petcu
and
Daniela Eșian
Faculty of Dental Medicine, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Târgu-Mureș, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2022, 9(5), 646; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9050646
Submission received: 21 March 2022 / Revised: 28 April 2022 / Accepted: 28 April 2022 / Published: 30 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advance Research in Pediatric Dental Disease)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sealants are highly efficient and the most secure method for the prevention of caries lesions from pits and fissures in recently erupted permanent teeth. The aim of this study is to clinically assess and compare the retention and evolution of caries of a moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant with a conventional hydrophobic resin-based sealant. Material and method: We have included in the study 28 children with between 6 and 8 years old. For each child we sealed 4 permanent molars (a total of 112 teeth). The study group was divided into two subgroups: the Embrace Group—consisting of 56 first permanent molars that underwent dental sealing with moisture-tolerant resin-based fissure sealant (Embrace™ WetBond™ Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) and the Helioseal Group—represented by the same number of 56 first permanent molars that were sealed with conventional hydrophobic resin-based sealant (Helioseal F™, Ivoclar Vivadent Schaan, Liechtenstein). The retention and the incidence of new carious lesions of each sealant were assessed clinically at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Results: The 12-month follow-up assessment showed perfect integrity in 50 molars (89.28%) sealed with moisture-tolerant resin-based material (Embrace Group), and in 51 molars (91.07%) with conventional resin-based sealant (Helioseal Group). At the 24-month recall, the retention was maintained in 44 molars (78.57%) in the Embrace Group and in 45 molars (80.35%) in the Helioseal Group, respectively. The follow-up assessments showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.5) between the two materials regarding sealant retention. First evidence of new carious lesions was present at 12 months on two molars sealed with Embrace WetBond and on one molar sealed with Helioseal. At the 24-month evaluation, the prevalence of caries in the Embrace Group was 7.14% (four caries) and 3.56% (two caries) in the Helioseal Group. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two materials regarding new caries development at any of the follow-up assessments. Conclusions: Moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant was effective in terms of retention and caries prevention.

1. Introduction

Over the last several years, dental caries prevalence among children and teenagers has suffered a slight decline [1]. Nevertheless, caries lesions still represent an important health problem worldwide [2] affecting 60–90% of children [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Most caries affecting young teeth start by destroying occlusal surfaces. Pit and fissures of the new erupted permanent molars represent the ideal place for caries lesion development due to their susceptibility to harboring dental plaque [9,10]. Because dental caries evolution involves the interaction of a complex series of factors such as a large number of bacteria, host resistance, diet, time, and other factors that vary among individuals, it is difficult to predict the teeth that will be affected [11,12].
From professional procedures for preventing dental caries, fluorides are very efficient in reducing the incidence of carious lesions that occur on the smooth surfaces of teeth. Unfortunately, fluorides are not equally effective in protecting occlusal pits and fissures [2,13]. Applying a sealant proved to be a highly effective means of preventing carious lesion in this case [14,15]. The efficiency of pit and fissure sealing for dental caries prevention has often been reported [16,17,18,19,20]. Current recommendations state that sealing pits and fissures of permanent molars and premolars is efficient and useful in maintaining healthy dental tissues; therefore, dentists should be guided to use sealants [21].
A material used for sealing pits and fissures, areas that that are the most frequent affected by caries, is called a fissure sealant. It creates a hindrance that interrupts the nutrition source of the biofilm, and as a result, it reduces the development of cariogenic bacteria [9,22]. It is well known that pits and fissures represent zones with a high deposit of mutans streptococci. Sealing these zones leads to a significant reduction of the bacteria on the treated tooth surface and also reduces their oral count [23]. There is an intense correlation between these retentive zones, the sealing material, and the incidence of caries lesions. If the sealant remains in perfect condition, the carious process will not be able to grow underneath [24,25]. That is why the retention of this material is the primary condition for the success of sealing. To increase the resistance of pit and fissure sealant materials, several materials and techniques have been proposed [26]. Today, resin-based and glass ionomer-based pit and fissure sealants are widely used [27]. Several published studies [28,29] proved that composite resins are currently the material of choice for sealants because of their higher retention compared to glass ionomer cements. Yet, resin-based materials have the disadvantage of being hydrophobic and technique-sensitive, which require increased control of the saliva level. In certain situations, such as with uncooperative patients or those with disabilities, salivary control is very challenging and difficult [30].
Currently, resin-based sealants are undergoing increased and alert development due to the improvement of moisture-tolerant chemistry. For example, Embrace™ WetBond™ (Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) is a sealant containing resin, no BisGMA, and no Bisphenol A, and it uses hydrophilic resin chemistry. Embrace incorporates di-tri and multifunctional acrylate monomers into an advanced acid-integrating chemistry that is activated by moisture [31]. Due to its chemical composition, it acts effectively in a humid environment, has moisture adhesion, is a less sensitive technique, has better retention, superior marginal sealing, and increased fluoride release. As a result, so, the sealant could be a proper aid in cases in which an absolute isolation is difficult [32,33].
The aim of this study is the clinical assessment of retention and evolution of caries when sealed with moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant compared to a conventional hydrophobic resin-based sealant over a period of 24 months.

2. Materials and Methods

The study methodology was approved by the ethics committee of the Denta Aur Private Medical Center, Tîrgu Mureș, Romania, with the clinical trial registration number 011/04.01.2019.
Written informed consent was obtained from the parents of all participating children.
Two calibrated dentists performed all the clinical steps. They were helped by trained chairside dental assistants. Before the examinations, operators completed an ICDAS-II calibration course, assessing the condition of tooth surfaces and the presence of caries according to the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS-II). They also had the opportunity to become familiar with the application techniques of the two materials.
For the clinical examination of molars, we used two examination methods: visual and tactile. For the visual examination, we cleaned and dried the teeth using a dental unit air/water spray, and for the tactile examination, we used a rounded tip dental probe to clean the plaque and food debris from the pits and fissures [34].
The inclusion criteria were as follows: the presence of all four completely erupted permanent first molars without dental abnormalities and with deep pits and fissures susceptible to tooth decay and no clinical signs of caries lesions. If the integrity of the tooth was doubtful, the suspicious teeth/children were excluded from the study. Teeth/children with fillings and sealants were also excluded.
In order to be recruited in our study, we examined 105 children (420 teeth) aged between 6 and 8 years. we excluded 74 children (296 teeth), because 68 children (272 teeth) did not meet the inclusion criteria (they had carious lesions, filings, or sealants), and 6 children or parents (24 teeth) declined to participate. Only 31 children had the indication for sealing for all their first permanent molars (124 teeth). Wishing to have as few variables as possible, we decided to base our study on these children’s molars. For 3 children, we could not perform all the periodic checks, so we had to exclude them throughout the study period. A total of 28 healthy cooperative children who were at caries risk with all four recently newly erupted permanent first molars (112 teeth) were included in the study (Figure 1).
The children included in the study had not benefited from systemic fluoridation and had good oral hygiene. In addition, all patients received instructions about good oral hygiene and diet.
The required sample size was determined to be 112 teeth (56 teeth per group) using G-power software™ Heinrich Heine University, Dusseldorf, Germany, for Windows, for a power of 95% (α = 0.05, β = 0.05).
There were 112 first permanent molars that underwent a preventive dental sealing procedure. We chose to use the split-mouth design method [35]. According to this method, an equal number of fissure sealants were applied to the maxillary and mandibular teeth and to the left and right side of both studied materials. Depending on the type of material we used, teeth were divided into two subgroups:
  • Embrace Group = 56 teeth sealed with a moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant Embrace™ WetBond™ Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA.
  • Helioseal Group = 56 teeth sealed with a conventional resin-based sealant Helioseal F™, Ivoclar Vivadent Schaan, Liechtenstein
The application of the sealant was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
For conventional resin-based sealant, the steps were: tooth cleaning with pumice without fluoride, rinsing with water and air-drying, cotton isolation of the tooth, air-drying of the tooth, application of the phosphoric acid gel (37%) for 30 s, rinsing and air-drying, control of the acid-etched dental surface, bonding application, light curing of the bonding, sealant application, light curing of the sealant, control of marginal adaptation and occlusion.
For moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant we followed the same steps with two exceptions: thorough air-drying after the enamel etching and bonding. In this case, after rinsing, the teeth were lightly dried using a cotton roll but not desiccated. We kept the occlusal surface of the teeth slightly moist, so it was glossy and shiny prior to the application of the sealant material.
Evaluation of sealant retention and development of caries was performed at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. At every follow-up assessment, we evaluated the integrity and marginal adaptation of the sealant through visual and tactile examination.
For assessing sealant retention, we used Simonsen’s criteria [36]:
  • I: Totally retained sealant.
  • II: Partially retained sealant.
  • III: Missing sealant.

Statistical Analysis

For evaluation of the categorical data, we used Fisher’s exact test and chi-squared test. The chosen significance level was set at 0.05. and p was considered significant when p ≤ 0.05. All data were recorded using GraphPad Prism™ V6.01 software for Windows™ 2017.

3. Results

A total of 112 teeth were sealed in 28 patients, and all patients attended all follow-up intervals, resulting in a recall rate of 100%.
The 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two sealing materials regarding sealant retention (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4).
At the 6-month follow-up interval the Embrace Group the Helioseal Group had similar percentages of completely retained (94.64%, 96.42%), partially retained (1.78%, 0) and missing (3.57%, 3.57%) sealants, respectively.
At the 12-month follow-up, approximately 90% of the sealants in both groups were totally retained, almost 4% were partially retained, and approximately 6% were missing.
At the 18-month follow-up evaluation, 85.71% of sealants were totally retained in the Embrace Group and 89.28% in the Helioseal Group; 5.35% were partially retained in the Embrace Group and 1.78% in the Helioseal Group. A percentage of 8.92% from both groups of sealants was missing.
At the end of our trial, at 24 months, in the Embrace Group 78.57% of sealants remained completely retained, whereas in the Helioseal Group 80.35% were retained; 8.92% and 10.71%, respectively, from the Embrace and Helioseal Groups were partially retained. From the Embrace Group, 12.5% of sealants were missing, and from the Helioseal Group 8.92% were missing.
The 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up assessments also showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two sealing materials concerning new carious lesion development (Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8).
At the 6-month follow-up, there were no carious lesions in either group. Evidence of new caries lesion was present at 12 months: two molars sealed with Embrace WetBond, and one molar sealed with Helioseal. At the 18-month follow-up, three molars from the Embrace Group and two molars from the Helioseal Group showed dental decay at the end of 24 months, the percentage of caries lesions in the Embrace Group was 8.92% (five caries) and 5.35% (three caries) in the Helioseal Group.

4. Discussion

The present study compared the clinical performance of a hydrophilic resin-based fissure sealant with a conventional hydrophobic resin-based sealant over a period of 24 months. In terms of retention or incidence of new carious lesions formation, there was no statistically significant difference between the two sealing materials. Both used fissure sealants showed a similar efficiency in preventing dental caries on the sealed surfaces. This is due to their good retention and fluoride release potential [37]. The addition of fluoride to sealants was based on the finding from more than 30 years ago that the prevalence of secondary caries was considerably reduced around fluoride-releasing materials such as ionomers used for restorations [38]. Fluoridated sealants have demonstrated antibacterial properties and a greater caries resistance compared with nonfluorinated ones [39,40]. It also has shown caries-inhibiting effects with an important reduction in the prevalence of wall caries and in the caries lesions depth [40]. This fact can be of great value because in practice, frequently, is difficult to put a correct diagnostic for a sound surface [41]. Another explanation of the effectiveness of sealants in preventing caries is that even in case of sealant loss, the rest of the material remains in the depth of pits and fissures and may have a protective role [42].
Our good results can also be correlated with the period we chose for sealing—as soon as it is possible after tooth eruption. This is the period recommended by the literature as the ideal time to seal a tooth because root development and all tooth hard structures mineralization continues in the years after eruption. During this period, tooth caries receptivity is maximum [43,44]. If the caries lesion does not occur in the years immediately after eruption, the probability for that tooth to become carious is very low. Sealing of adult teeth is not routinely recommended. Sealants should be placed on adult teeth if there is a high risk of caries as could occur in case of an excessive intake of sugar, xerostomia induced by radiation therapy, drugs, or other causes [45].
Our results are similar to other recent published studies [26,40,46,47], revealing the same effectiveness of the moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant compared to the conventional hydrophobic resin-based sealant. We have also found studies with results differing from ours, where the moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant showed higher retention and caries prevention effect than conventional resin-based sealant [48], or, in contrast, showed significantly lower retention and caries prevention of moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant than conventional resin-based sealant [49].
These contradictory findings highlight the need for more studies with longer follow-up periods to assess the performance of the newer hydrophilic sealants.
Moisture-tolerant resin-based materials could be an addition to pit and fissure sealants [27] because moisture contamination is a significant risk factor for material retention and resistance. In practice, we often have situations where it is difficult to attain good moisture control. The high possibility of occlusal caries development is during tooth eruption because the accumulation of dental plaque is more abundant on the occlusal surfaces of erupting teeth compared to teeth with proper occlusal contact [50]. As a result, the occlusal surfaces of recently erupted teeth are mainly affected by caries because of the reduced possibility of cleaning and the diminished natural cleaning mechanisms [51]. Moreover, newly erupted teeth are less mineralized because the post-eruptive maturation is not completed, and they have less resistance to acid attacks [37,52,53]. Thus, it is important to find a sealant with good clinical performance for use in partially erupted teeth, and for other cases, where proper isolation is challenging, such as in uncooperative patients or persons with psychiatric diagnoses [42,54].
This new generation of fissure sealants could be helpful in situations where maintaining isolation is difficult [32]. It also provides other advantages. Owning hydrophilic properties, it has lower technical sensitivity than conventional resin-based sealants [55]. It does not require a bonding agent, and it reduces the time needed for the procedure and increases patient cooperation [56]. A moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant, which is clinically efficient, could offer dentists a new alternative in pit and fissure sealing especially when moisture control is difficult.

Limitations of the Study

It is mandatory to mention the limitations of the study. We have gathered and formed a specific group of children, and the follow-up period was short. This study is ongoing, and further results will be published.

5. Conclusions

Both resin-based sealant materials that were used in the study were effective regarding retention and preventions of caries lesions on young first permanent molars over a period of 24 months. Moisture-tolerant resin-based fissure sealant displayed a comparable retention rate as a conventional resin-based pit and fissure sealant. They are similarly effective in preventing caries development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.V.; data curation, L.B.; formal analysis, L.B. and B.P.; investigation, T.D. and D.E.; methodology, M.P.; project administration, A.M.S.; software, T.D.; supervision, M.P.; visualization, B.P.; writing—original draft, A.V.; writing—review and editing, A.M.S. and D.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the ethics committee of the Denta Aur Private Medical Center, Tîrgu Mureș, Romania, with the clinical trial registration number 011/04.01.2019.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not Applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Likar Ostrc, L.; Suklan, J.; Pavlič, A. The effectiveness of completely and incompletely sealed first permanent molars on caries prevention. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2020, 6, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Ahovuo-Saloranta, A.; Forss, H.; Hiiri, A.; Nordblad, A.; Makela, M. Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 1, Cd003067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Fact Sheet N318. 2012. Available online: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs318/en/ (accessed on 30 March 2017).
  4. Beltran-Aguilar, E.D.; Barker, L.K.; Canto, M.T.; Dye, B.A.; Gooch, B.F.; Griffin, S.O.; Hyman, J.; Jaramillo, F.; Kingman, A.; Nowjack-Raymer, R.; et al. Surveillance for dental caries, dental sealants, tooth retention, edentulism, and enamel fluorosis: United States, 1988–1994 and 1999–2002. MMWR Surveil. Summ. 2005, 54, 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mačiulskienė, V.; Razmienė, J.; Andruškevičienė, V.; Bendoraitienė, E. Estimation of Caries Treatment Needs in First Permanent Molars of Lithuanian 5–6-Year-Old Children, Based on Caries Lesion Activity Assessment. Medicina 2020, 56, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Khan, Q.; Farooq, I.; ArRejaie, A.; Khabeer, A.; Farooqi, F.A. Prevalence of First Permanent Molar Caries among 8 to 12 Years Old School-Going Children Living in Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ann. Jinnah Sindh Med. Uni. 2017, 3, 18–21. [Google Scholar]
  7. Zhong, X.M.; Jia, C.M.; Duan, Y.F.; Duan, Y.; Qiao, X. An Epidemiological Investigation of Caries Status of the First Permanent Molars of Children Aged 7–9 Year in Taizhou City. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2017, 26, 328–330. [Google Scholar]
  8. Aras, A.; Dogan, M.S. Caries Prevalence and Severity in Immature Permanent First Molar Teeth in Sanliurfa City, Turkey. J. Dent. Indones. 2020, 27, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yilmaz, H.; Keles, S. The effect of the Er: YAG laser on the clinical success of hydrophilic fissure sealant: A randomized clinical trial. Eur. Oral Res. 2020, 54, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Richard Mathewson, J.; Robert Primosch, E. Fundamentals of Pediatric Dentistry, 3rd ed.; Quintessence Publishing Co.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008; pp. 119–120. [Google Scholar]
  11. Twetman, S. Caries risk assessment in children: How accurate are we? Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2016, 17, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mejare, I.; Axelsson, S.; Dahlen, G.; Espelid, I.; Norlund, A.; Tranaeus, S.; Twetman, S. Caries risk assessment. A systematic review. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2014, 72, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bravo, M.; Montero, J.; Bravo, J.J.; Baca, P.; Llodra, J.C. Sealant and fluoride varnish in caries: A randomizedtrial. J. Dent. Res. 2005, 84, 1138–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bhushan, U.; Goswami, M. Evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealants placed with and without air abrasion pretreatment in 6–8 year old children in vivo study. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2017, 9, e211–e217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Chestnutt, I.G.; Playle, R.; Hutchings, S.; Morgan-Trimmer, S.; Fitzsimmons, D.; Aawar, N.; Angel, L.; Derrick, S.; Drew, C.; Hoddell, C.; et al. Fissure seal or fluoride varnish? a randomized trial of relative effectiveness. J. Dent. Res. 2017, 96, 754–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Frazer, R.A.; Platt, J.A.; Sanders, B.J.; Yepes, J.F.; Jones, J.E. The effect of fluoride varnish on enamel shear bond strength of pit and fissure sealants. Pediatr. Dent. 2017, 39, 155–158. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Deery, C. Clinical practice guidelines proposed the use of pit and fissure sealants to prevent and arrest noncavitated carious lesions. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 2017, 17, 48–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ahovuo-Saloranta, A.; Hiiri, A.; Nordblad, A.; Nordblad, A.; Mäkelä, M.; Worthington, H.V. Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2008. Caries Res. 2017, 5, 34. [Google Scholar]
  19. Beresescu, L. Pacurar M. Clinical assessment of the efficiency of two pit and fissure sealants. Acta Med. Transilv. 2013, 2, 301–303. [Google Scholar]
  20. Canga, M.; Malagnino, G.; Malagnino, V.A.; Malagnino, I. Effectiveness of Sealants Treatment in Permanent Molars: A Longitudinal Study. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2021, 14, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wright, J.T.; Tampi, M.P.; Graham, L.; Estrich, C.; Crall, J.J.; Fontana, M.; Gillette, E.J.; Novy, B.B.; Dhar, V.; Donly, K.; et al. Sealants for preventing and arresting pit-and-fissure occlusal caries in primary and permanent molars: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials-a report of the American dental association and the American academy of pediatric dentistry. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2016, 147, 631–645.e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Cvikl, B.; Moritz, A.; Bekes, K. Pit and Fissure Sealants-A Comprehensive Review. Dent. J. 2018, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Mass, E.; Eli, I.; Lev-Dor-Samovici, B.; Weiss, E.I. Continuous effect of pit and fissure sealing on S. mutans presence in situ. Pediatr. Dent. 1999, 21, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Mickenautsch, S.; Yengopal, V. Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention—A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e77103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Anauate-Netto, C.; Borelli LNeto Amore, R.; DIHipólito, V.; D’Alpino, P.H.P. Caries progression in non-cavitated fissures after infiltrant application: A 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2017, 25, 442–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Hitt, J.C.; Feigal, R.J. Use of a bonding agent to reduce sealant sensitivity to moisture contamination: An in vitro study. Pediatr. Dent. 1992, 14, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Bhat, P.K.; Konde, S.; Raj, S.N.; Kumar, N.C. Moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant: A boon. Contemp. Clin. Dent. 2013, 4, 343–348. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kervanto-Seppälä, S.; Lavonius, E.; Pietilä, I.; Pitkäniemi, J.; Meurman, J.H.; Kerosuo, E. Comparing the caries-preventive effect of two fissure sealing modalities în public health care: A single application of glass ionomer and a routine resin-based sealant programme. A randomized split-mouth clinical trial. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2008, 18, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kühnisch, J.; Mansmann, U.; Heinrich-Weltzien, R.; Hickel, R. Longevity of materials for pit and fissure sealing–results from a meta-analysis. Dent. Mater. 2012, 28, 298–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Almahdy, A.; Al-Otaibi, A.; Binhamdan, A.; AlNatheer, Y.; Alqahtani, N.; Alrahlah, A.; Albarakati, S. Using bonding agent prior to pits and fissure sealant application enhances the microtensile bond strength and the interface morphology. Saudi Dent. J. 2021, 33, 487–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Strassler, H.E.; O’Donnell, J.P. A unique moisture-tolerant, resin based pit-and-fissure sealant: Clinical technique and research results. Inside Dent. 2008, 4, 2–3. [Google Scholar]
  32. Panigrahi, A.; Srilatha, K.T.; Panigrahi, R.G.; Mohanty, S.; Bhuyan, S.K.; Bardhan, D. Microtensile Bond Strength of Embrace Wetbond Hydrophilic Sealant in Different Moisture Contamination: An In-Vitro Study. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2015, 9, ZC23-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hoffman, I. A moisture tolerant, resin based pit and fissure sealant. Dent. Trib. 2009, 4, 17A–18A. [Google Scholar]
  34. Beauchamp, J.; Caufield, P.; Crall, J.; Donly, K.; Feigal, R.; Gooch, B.; Ismail, A.; Kohn, W.; Siegal, M.; Simonsen, R. Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: A report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2009, 53, 131–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Pozos-Guillén, A.; Chavarría-Bolaños, D.; Garrocho-Rangel, A. A Split-mouth design in Paediatric Dentistry clinical trials. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2017, 18, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Simonsen, R.J. Retention and Effectiveness of Dental Sealant after 15 Years. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1991, 122, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Subramaniam, P.; Jayasurya, S.; Babu, K.G. Evaluation of glass carbomer sealant and a moisture tolerant resin sealant—A comparative study. Int. J. Dent. Sci. Res. 2015, 2, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Forsten, L. Fluoride release from a glass ionomer cement. Scand. J. Dent. Res. 1977, 85, 503–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kozai, K.; Suzuki, J.; Okada, M.; Nagasaka, N. In vitro study of antibacterial and antiadhesive activities of fluoride-containing light-cured fissure sealants and a glass ionomer liner/base against oral bacteria. ASDC J. Dent. Child 2000, 67, 117–122. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hicks, M.J.; Flaitz, C.M.; Garcia-Godoy, F. Fluoride-releasing sealant and caries-like enamel lesion formation in vitro. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2000, 24, 215–219. [Google Scholar]
  41. Dodds, M.W.J. Dilemas in caries diagnosis—Applications to current practice, and need for research. J. Dent. Educ. 1993, 57, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Askarizadeh, N.; Heshmat, H.; Zangeneh, N. One-Year Clinical Success of Embrace Hydrophilic and Helioseal-F Hydrophobic Sealants in Permanent First Molars: A Clinical Trial. J. Dent. 2017, 14, 92–99. [Google Scholar]
  43. Muller-Bolla, M.; Courson, F.; Droz, D.; Lupi-Pegurier, L.; Velly, A.M. Definition of at-risk occlusal surfacesof permanent molars—A descriptive study. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2009, 34, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kotsanos, N.; Darling, A.I. Influence of posteruptive age of enamel on its susceptibility to artificial caries. Caries Res. 1991, 25, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Harris, N.O.; Garcia-Godoy, F.; Nathe, C.N. Primary Preventive Dentistry, 8th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2014; p. 278. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mathew, G.; Jayakaran, T.G.; Ramkumar, H.; Dakshinamoorthy, S.; Paulindraraj, S.; Solomon, N. Evaluation of Embrace WetBond and Helioseal-F sealant retention with and without a Self-etch adhesive: A 12 month follow-up. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2021, 13, e1189–e1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ratnaditya, A.; Kumar, M.M.; Jogendra, S.S.A.; Zabirunnisa, M.; Chaitanya, R.K.; Chowdhary Kopuri, R.K. Clinical evaluation of hydrophobic and hydrophillic pit and fissure sealants-A two year follow-up study. J. Young Pharm. 2015, 7, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Schlueter, N.; Klimek, J.; Ganss, C. Efficacy of a moisture-tolerant material for fissure sealing: A prospective randomised clinical trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2013, 17, 711–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Mohanraj, M.; Prabhu, R.; Thomas, E.; Kumar, S. Comparative Evaluation of Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Resin-based Sealants: A Clinical Study. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2019, 20, 812–817. [Google Scholar]
  50. Carvalho, J.C. Caries process on occlusal surfaces: Evolving evidence and understanding. Caries Res. 2014, 48, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Carvalho, J.C.; Dige, I.; Machiulskiene, V.; Qvist, V.; Bakhshandeh, A.; Fatturi-Parolo, C.; Maltz, M. Occlusal caries: Biological approach for its diagnosis and management. Caries Res. 2016, 50, 527–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yu, F.; Yu, H.; Lin, P.; Dong, Y.; Zhang, L.; Sun, X.; Liu, Z.; Guo, H.; Huang, L.; Chen, J. Effect of an antibacterial monomer on the antibacterial activity of a pit-and-fissure sealant. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0162281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bica, C.I.; Chincesan, M.; Esian, D.; Martha, K.; Ion, V.; Marinescu, L.R.; Earar, K.; Matei, M.N. Dental Development in Children after Chemotherapy. Rev. Chim. 2017, 68, 1495–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Azarpazhooh, A.; Main, P.A. Is there a risk of harm or toxicity in the placement of pit and fissure sealant materials? A systematic review. J. Can. Dent. Assoc. 2008, 74, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  55. Khare, M.; Suprabha, B.S.; Shenoy, R.; Rao, A. Evaluation of pit-and-fissure sealants placed with four different bonding protocols: A randomized clinical trial. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent 2017, 27, 444–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Eskandarian, T.; Baghi, S.; Alipoor, A. Comparison of clinical success of applying a kind of fissure sealant on the lower permanent molar teeth in dry and wet conditions. J. Dent. 2015, 16, 162–168. [Google Scholar]
Children 09 00646 g001 550
Figure 1. Consort flow diagram for the study.
Figure 1. Consort flow diagram for the study.
Children 09 00646 g001
Table
Table 1. Assessment of sealant retention rate after 6 months according to Simonsen’s criteria.
Table 1. Assessment of sealant retention rate after 6 months according to Simonsen’s criteria.
IIIIIITotalp = 0.603
Embrace53 (94.64%)1 (1.78%)2 (3.57%)56
Helioseal54 (96.42%)02 (3.57%)56
Total107 (95.53%)1 (0.89)4 (3.57%)112 (100%)
Table
Table 2. Assessment of sealant retention after 12 months according to Simonsen’s criteria.
Table 2. Assessment of sealant retention after 12 months according to Simonsen’s criteria.
IIIIIITotalp = 0.5619
Embrace50 (89.28%)3 (5.35%)3 (5.35%)56
Helioseal51 (91.07%)1 (1.78%)4 (7.14%)56
Total101 (90.17%)4 (3.57%)7 (6.25%)112 (100%)
Table
Table 3. Assessment of sealant retention after 18 months according to Simonsen’s criteria.
Table 3. Assessment of sealant retention after 18 months according to Simonsen’s criteria.
I IIIIITotalp = 0.5943
Embrace48 (85.71%)3 (5.35%)5 (8.92%)56
Helioseal50 (89.28%)1 (1.78%)5 (8.92%)56
Total98 (87.50%)4 (3.57%)10 (8.92%)112 (100%)
Table
Table 4. Assessment of sealant retention after 24 months according to Simonsen’s criteria.
Table 4. Assessment of sealant retention after 24 months according to Simonsen’s criteria.
IIIIIITotalp = 0.8043
Embrace44 (78.57%)5 (8.92%)7 (12.5%)56
Helioseal45 (80.35%)6 (10.71%)5 (8.92%)56
Total89 (79.46%)11 (9.82%)12 (10.71%)112 (100%)
Table
Table 5. Assessment of carious lesion after 6 months.
Table 5. Assessment of carious lesion after 6 months.
MaterialYesNoTotal
Embrace05656
Helioseal05656
Total0112112
Table
Table 6. Assessment of carious lesion after 12 months.
Table 6. Assessment of carious lesion after 12 months.
MaterialYesNoTotalp = 1.000
Embrace2 (3.57%)54 (96.42%)56
Helioseal1 (1.78%)55 (98.21%)56
Total3 (2.67%)109 (97.32%)112
Table
Table 7. Assessment of carious lesion after 18 months.
Table 7. Assessment of carious lesion after 18 months.
MaterialYesNoTotalp = 1.000
Embrace3 (5.35%)53 (94.64%)56
Helioseal2 (3.57%)54 (96.42%)56
Total5 (4.46%)107 (95.53%)112
Table
Table 8. Assessment of carious lesion after 24 months.
Table 8. Assessment of carious lesion after 24 months.
MaterialYesNoTotalp = 0.7163
Embrace5 (8.92%)51 (91.07%)56
Helioseal3 (5.35%)53 (94.64%)56
Total8 (7.14%)104 (92.85%)112
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Beresescu, L.; Pacurar, M.; Vlasa, A.; Stoica, A.M.; Dako, T.; Petcu, B.; Eșian, D. Comparative Assessment of Retention and Caries Protective Effectiveness of a Hydrophilic and a Conventional Sealant—A Clinical Trial. Children 2022, 9, 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9050646

AMA Style

Beresescu L, Pacurar M, Vlasa A, Stoica AM, Dako T, Petcu B, Eșian D. Comparative Assessment of Retention and Caries Protective Effectiveness of a Hydrophilic and a Conventional Sealant—A Clinical Trial. Children. 2022; 9(5):646. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9050646

Chicago/Turabian Style

Beresescu, Liana, Mariana Pacurar, Alexandru Vlasa, Alexandra Mihaela Stoica, Timea Dako, Blanka Petcu, and Daniela Eșian. 2022. "Comparative Assessment of Retention and Caries Protective Effectiveness of a Hydrophilic and a Conventional Sealant—A Clinical Trial" Children 9, no. 5: 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9050646

APA Style

Beresescu, L., Pacurar, M., Vlasa, A., Stoica, A. M., Dako, T., Petcu, B., & Eșian, D. (2022). Comparative Assessment of Retention and Caries Protective Effectiveness of a Hydrophilic and a Conventional Sealant—A Clinical Trial. Children, 9(5), 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9050646

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop