Retention of pit and fissure sealants versus flowable composites in permanent teeth: A systematic review

Hasini Ramesh, Rupa Ashok, Mathan Rajan, Lakshmi Balaji, Arathi Ganesh, Hasini Ramesh, Rupa Ashok, Mathan Rajan, Lakshmi Balaji, Arathi Ganesh

Abstract

Objective: To summarize the available clinical evidence on the relative effectiveness of retention of resin-based pit and fissure sealants (PFS) with that of flowable composites on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth when evaluated in clinical trials.

Sources: Electronic searches were performed in PubMed and Cochrane Library for the identification of relevant studies, from their inception until February 2020 and an additional search was done with the reference lists of included articles.

Study selection: The review protocol followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018112805). The risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0).

Data: Ten articles were considered relevant for qualitative synthesis. The data extracted from two of the included articles showed statistically significant difference between the two materials based on their retention potential, of which one article favored superior retention of flowable composites and one article favored higher retention of PFS and the other eight studies showed no significant difference between the two materials.

Conclusion: The current review has shown evidence suggesting the effective retention of resin-based pit-and-fissure sealants and flowable composites when applied to prevent occlusal caries in permanent molars, however, this evidence is of low quality. Carefully designed long-term clinical trials are required to support the results of this review.

Clinical significance: This is an important topic that would be of significant interest in the field of preventive dentistry, where sealants are the primary recommended method to prevent caries. The clinical efficacy of sealants is directly linked to their potential to retain and this systematic review focuses on comparing the relative effectiveness of resin-based pit-and-fissure-sealants with flowable composites in permanent teeth.

Keywords: Flowable composites; Permanent dentition; Pit and fissure sealants; Retention; Systematic review; TBC.

© 2020 The Author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A flow diagram showing the process from identification to inclusion of the studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias summary: review author's judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

References

    1. Wright J.T., Tampi M.P., Graham L., Estrich C., Crall J.J., Fontana M. Sealants for preventing and arresting pit-and-fissure occlusal caries in primary and permanent molars. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2016 Aug;147(8):631–645. e18.
    1. Young D.A., Nový B.B., Zeller G.G., Hale R., Hart T.C., Truelove E.L. The American dental association caries classification system for clinical practice. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2015 Feb;146(2):79–86.
    1. Paes Leme A.F., Koo H., Bellato C.M., Bedi G., Cury J.A. The role of sucrose in cariogenic dental biofilm formation--new insight. J. Dent. Res. 2006;85(10):878-887.
    1. Gupta M., Srivastava N., Sharma M., Gugnani N., Pandit I. International caries detection and assessment system (ICDAS): a new concept. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2011 Aug;4(2):93–100.
    1. Lagerweij M.D., van Loveren C. Declining caries trends: are we satisfied? Curr. Oral Health Rep. 2015 Dec;2(4):212–217.
    1. Beauchamp J., Caufield P.W., Crall J.J., Donly K., Feigal R., Gooch B. Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2008 Mar;139(3):257–268.
    1. Nelson Stanley.J. tenth ed. 2014. Wheeler’s Dental Anatomy, Physiology, and Occlusion.
    1. Brown L.J., Kaste L.M., Selwitz R.H., Furman L.J. Dental caries and sealant usage IN U.S. CHILDREN, 1988-1991: selected findings from the third national health and nutrition examination survey. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1996 Mar;127(3):335–343.
    1. Pardi V., Pereira A.C., Ambrosano G.M.B., Meneghim M. de C. Clinical evaluation of three different materials used as pit and fissure sealant: 24-months results. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2005 Jan;29(2):133–138.
    1. Deery C. Strong evidence for the effectiveness of resin based sealants: question: what are the effects of different types of fissure sealants in preventing caries in permanent teeth in children and adolescents? Evid. Base Dent. 2013 Sep;14(3):69–70.
    1. Fatima N. Influence of extended light exposure curing times on the degree of conversion of resin-based pit and fissure sealant materials. Saudi Dent .J. 2014 Oct;26(4):151–155.
    1. Feigal R.J. Sealants and Preventive restorations: review of effectiveness and clinical changes for improvement. Pediatr. Dent. 1998;20:2.
    1. Pires-de-Souza F.C.P., Aguilar F., Drubi-Filho B., Casemiro L., Watanabe M.G.C. 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.
    1. Ergücü Z., Türkün L.S., Önem E., Güneri P. Comparative radiopacity of six flowable resin composites. Operat. Dent. 2010 Jul;35(4):436–440.
    1. Baroudi K. Flowable resin composites: a systematic review and clinical considerations. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2015 [Internet] [cited 2020 Apr 28]; Available from:
    1. Corona S.A.M., Borsatto M.C., Garcia L., Ramos R.P., Palma-Dibb R.G. Randomized, controlled trial comparing the retention of a flowable restorative system with a conventional resin sealant: one-year follow up. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2005 Jan;15(1):44–50.
    1. Oba A.A., Sönmez I.S., Ercan E., Dülgergil T. Comparison of retention rates of fissure sealants using two flowable restorative materials and a conventional resin sealant: two-year follow-up. Med. Princ. Pract. 2012;21(3):234–237.
    1. Duki W., Luli O. Clinical comparison of flowable composite to other fissure sealing materials – a 12 Months study. Coll. Antropol. 2007;6
    1. Erdemir U., Sancakli H.S., Yaman B.C., Ozel S., Yucel T., Yıldız E. Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant: a 24-month split-mouth, randomized, and controlled study. J. Dent. 2014 Feb;42(2):149–157.
    1. Ahovuo-Saloranta A., Forss H., Walsh T., Hiiri A., Nordblad A., Mäkelä M. Sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth. In: The Cochrane Collaboration, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet] John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; Chichester, UK: 2013. [cited 2020 Apr 28]. p. CD001830.pub4.
    1. Ahovuo-Saloranta A., Forss H., Hiiri A., Nordblad A., Mäkelä M. Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. In: Cochrane Oral Health Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet] 2016 Jan 18. [cited 2020 Apr 28]
    1. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G., Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int. J. Surg. 2010;8:336–341.
    1. Reddy Vr, Chowdhary N., Mukunda K., Kiran N., Kavyarani B., Pradeep M. Retention of resin-based filled and unfilled pit and fissure sealants: a comparative clinical study. Contemp. Clin. Dent. 2015;6(5):18.
    1. Fernández E., Martin J., Vildósola P., Estay J., de Oliveira Júnior O., Gordan V. Sealing composite with defective margins, good care or over treatment? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. Operat. Dent. 2015 Mar;40(2):144–152.
    1. Estay J., Bersezio C., Faune J., Correa M.P., Angel P., Martín J., Fernández E. Effects of sealing marginal occlusal defects of composite restorations with a nanofiller-reinforced flowable resin composite: a double-blind, randomised clinical trial with one-year follow-up. Oral Health Prev. Dent. 2018;16(6):491–497.
    1. Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S. Evaluation of different fissure sealant materials and flowable composites used as pitand-fissure sealants: a 24-month clinical trial. 37(5):6.
    1. Autio-Gold J.T. Clinical evaluation of a medium- filled flowable restorative material as a pit and fissure sealant. Operat. Dent. 2002 Jul-Aug;27(4):325–329.
    1. Dukic W., Glavina D. Clinical evaluation of three fissure sealants: 24 month follow-up. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2007 Sep;8(3):163–166.
    1. Amin H.E. Clinical and antibacterial effectiveness of three different sealant materials. J. Dent. Hyg. 2008;82(5):10.
    1. Jafarzadeh M, Malekafzali B, Tadayon N, Fallahi S. Retention of a flowable composite resin in comparison to a conventional resin-based sealant: one-year follow-up. J. Dent.. 7(1):5.
    1. Singh C., Kaur K., Kapoor K. Retention of pit and fissure sealant versus flowable composite: an in vivo one-year comparative evaluation. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2019;37(4):372.
    1. Dennison J.B., Straffon L.H., More F.G. Evaluating tooth eruption on sealant efficacy. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1990 Nov;121(5):610–614.
    1. Bagherian A., Sarraf Shirazi A., Sadeghi R. Adhesive systems under fissure sealants: yes or no? J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2016 Jun;147(6):446–456.
    1. Bagherian A., Shiraz A.S. Flowable composite as fissure sealing material? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. Dent. J. 2018 Jan;224(2):92–97.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi