Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Resin-based Pit and Fissure Sealant and Self-adhering Flowable Composite: An In Vivo Study

Saakshe Wadhwa, Ullal A Nayak, Damodhar Kappadi, Deepesh Prajapati, Reena Sharma, Apurva Pawar, Saakshe Wadhwa, Ullal A Nayak, Damodhar Kappadi, Deepesh Prajapati, Reena Sharma, Apurva Pawar

Abstract

Aim: The study evaluated the use of self-adhering flowable composite as a fissure sealant and compared it with a resin-based pit and fissure sealant.

Materials and methods: Forty children were selected for the study and all their four permanent first molars were subjected to fluoride free pumice oral prophylaxis. Their occlusal fissures were then prepared with fissurotomy bur using high-speed handpiece under cotton roll isolation and low volume suction. Simple random sampling was done and accordingly a child either received either a resin-based fissure sealant or a self-adhering flowable composite on the prepared fissure. All the restorations were clinically evaluated using Ryge's direct evaluation criteria for four times i.e., immediately after the treatment, at the end of 3rd, 6th and 12th month. The retention was evaluated using Horowytz criteria.

Results: The retention rate of Dyad flow after one year was significantly higher than that of Helioseal-F (p = 0.015). The marginal integrity of Dyad Flow was significantly better than that of Helioseal-F during every evaluation period (p < 0.05). Both retention and marginal integrity of both sealants were similar in maxillary and mandibular molars at all evaluation periods.

Conclusion: Dyad flow can be used as an alternative to the conventional fissure sealant.

Clinical significance: In pediatric dentistry, where shorter appointment time is warranted, the self-adhering composite has the edge over conventional fissure sealant.How to cite this article: Wadhwa S, Nayak UA, Kappadi D, Prajapati D, Sharma R, Pawar A. Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Resin-based Pit and Fissure Sealant and Self-adhering Flowable Composite: An In-vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018;11(5):430-434.

Keywords: Marginal integrity; Pit and fissure sealant; Retention; Self-adhering flowable composite..

Conflict of interest statement

Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None

Figures

Graph 1:
Graph 1:
Comparative evaluation of retention of Helioseal-F and Dyad flow at different evaluation periods and between upper and lower permanent molars
Graph 2:
Graph 2:
Comparative evaluation of marginal integrity of Helioseal-F and Dyad flow at different evaluation periods and between upper and lower permanent molars

References

    1. Salama FS, AL-Hammad NS. Marginal seal of sealant and compomer materials with and without enameloplasty. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2002;12(1):39–46.
    1. Simonsen RJ, editor. Chapter 2: Pit and fissure sealants. Clinical Applications of the Acid Etch Technique. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc; 1978. pp. 19–42.
    1. Mc Donald RE, Avery DR. Pit and Fissure Sealants and Preventive Resin Restorations. In: Sanders BJ, Henderson HZ, Avery DR, editors; Dentistry for the child and Adolescent, 8th ed. New Delhi: Elsevier Publishers; 2004. pp. 355–356.
    1. Lele GS, Bhide PC. Evaluation of Dyad Flow as a Pit and Fissure Sealant: An In-Vitro Pilot Study. Int J Oral Health Med Res. 2016;2(6):62–66.
    1. Deshpande A, Sudani U, Bargale S, Poonacha KS, Kadam M, Joshi N. Six months clinical performance of self etch-self adhesive flowable composite and conventional pit-and-fissure sealants in 7 to 10 year old children. J Adv Med Dent Sci Res. 2016 Mar 1;4(2):38–43.
    1. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1973 Aug;87(2):369–77.
    1. Horowitz HS, Heifetz SB, Poulsen S. Adhesive sealant clinical trial: an overview of results after four years in Kalispell, Montana. The Journal of preventive dentistry. 1976;3(3 Pt 2):38–39.
    1. Ninawe N, Ullal NA, Khandelwal V. A 1-year clinical evaluation of fissure sealants on permanent first molars. Contemporary clinical dentistry. 2012 Jan;3(1):54–59.
    1. Sol E, Espasa E, Boj JR, Canalda C. Effect of different prophylaxis methods on sealant adhesion. The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. 2000;24(3):211–214.
    1. Ibsen RL. Use of a filled diacrylate as fissure sealant: one-year clinical study. The Journal of the American Society for Preventive Dentistry. 1973;3(4):60–65.
    1. Yildiz E, Dorter C, Efes B, Koray F. A comparative study of two fissure sealants: a 2-year clinical follow-up. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2004 Oct;31(10):979–984.
    1. Feigal RJ, Quelhas I. Clinical trial of a self-etching adhesive for sealant application: success at 24 months with Prompt L-Pop. American journal of dentistry. 2003 Aug;16(4):249–251.
    1. Burt BA, Herman DS, Silverstone LM. Sealant retention and effects on occlusal caries after 2 years in a public program. Community dentistry and oral epidemiology. 1977 Feb;5(1):15–21.
    1. Stephen KW, Sutherland DA, Trainer J. Fissure sealing by practitioners. First year retention data in Scottish 6-year-old children. British dental journal. 1976 Jan 20;140(2):45–51.
    1. Dennison JB, Straffon LH, More FG. Evaluating tooth eruption on sealant efficacy. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1990 Nov 1;121(5):610–614.
    1. Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatric dentistry. 2002 Sep;24(5):393–414.
    1. Autio-Gold JT. Clinical evaluation of a medium-filled flowable restorative material as a pit and fissure sealant. Operative dentistry. 2002 Jul 1;27(4):325–329.
    1. Duggal MS, Tahmassebi JF, Toumba KJ, Mavromati C. The effect of etching times on the retention of fissure sealants in primary and first permanent molars. International journal of paediatric dentistry. 1997 Jun;7(2):81–86.
    1. Blackwood JA, Dilley DC, Roberts MW, Swift EJ Jr. Evaluation of pumice, fissure enameloplasty and air abrasion on sealant microleakage. Pediatric dentistry. 2002 May-Jun;24(3):199–203.
    1. Going RE, Conti AJ, Haugh LD, Grainger DA. Two-year clinical evaluation of a pit and fissure sealant. Part II: Caries initiation and progression. The Journal of the American Dental Association [Internet]. Elsevier BV; 1976 Mar;92(3):578–585.
    1. Handelman SI, Washburn F, Wopperer P. Two year report of sealant effect on bacteria in dental caries. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1976 Nov 1;93(5):967–970.
    1. Poulsen S, Breiruti N, Sadat N. A comparison of retention and the effect on caries of fissure sealing with glass-ionomer and resin-based sealant. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001;29(4):298–301.
    1. Fuks AB, Grajower R, Shapira J. In vitro assessment of marginal leakage of sealants placed in permanent molars with different etching times. ASDC journal of dentistry for children. 1984;51(6):425–427.
    1. Pardi V, Sinhoreti MA, Pereira AC, Ambrosano GM, Meneghim MD. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of different materials used as pit-and-fissure sealants. Brazilian dental journal. 2006;17(1):49–52.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa