Effectiveness of two new types of sealants: retention after 2 years

Xi Chen, Minquan Du, Mingwen Fan, Jan Mulder, Marie-Charlotte Huysmans, Jo E Frencken, Xi Chen, Minquan Du, Mingwen Fan, Jan Mulder, Marie-Charlotte Huysmans, Jo E Frencken

Abstract

The hypotheses tested were: survival rate of fully and partially retained glass-carbomer sealants is higher than those of high-viscosity glass-ionomer, with and without energy supplied, and that of resin composite; survival rate of fully and partially retained sealants of high-viscosity glass-ionomer with energy supplied is higher than those without energy supplied. The randomized clinical trial covered 407 children, with a mean age of 8 years. The evaluation took place after 0.5, 1 and 2 years. Survival of sealant material in occlusal and in smooth surfaces, using the traditional categorization (fully and partially retained versus completely lost sealants) and the modified categorization (fully and more than 2/3 of the sealant retained versus completely lost sealants), were dependent variables. The Kaplan-Meier survival method was used. According to both categorizations of partially retained sealants, the survival of completely and partially retained resin composite sealants in occlusal and in smooth tooth surfaces was statistically significantly higher, and those of glass-carbomer sealants lower, than those of sealants of the other three groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the survival rates of completely and partially retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer sealants with and without energy supplied in occlusal and in smooth surfaces. After 2 years, glass-carbomer sealant retention was the poorest, adding energy to high-viscosity glass-ionomer sealant did not increase the retention rate and resin composite sealants were retained the longest. We suggest the use of the modified categorization of partially retained sealants in future studies. It seems not necessary to cure high-viscosity glass-ionomer sealants. The use of glass-carbomer sealants cannot be recommended yet.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Consort flow diagram of current investigation. (N number; Noc number of sealants in occlusal surface; Nsm number of sealants in smooth surface)

References

    1. Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Hiiri A, Nordblad A, Mäkelä M, Worthington H (2008) Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001830
    1. Griffin SO, Oong E, Kohn W, Vidakovic B, Gooch BF, Bader J, Clarkson J, Fontana MR, Meyer DM, Rozier RG, Weintraub JA, Zero DT. The effectiveness of sealants in managing caries lesions. J Dent Res. 2008;87:169–174. doi: 10.1177/154405910808700211.
    1. Oong EM, Griffin SO, Kohn WG, Gooch BF, Caufield PW. The effect of dental sealants on bacteria levels in caries lesions: a review of the evidence. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139:271–278.
    1. Peez R, Frank S. The physical-mechanical performance of the new Ketac Molar Easymix compared to commercially available glass ionomer restoratives. J Dent. 2006;34:582–587. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.12.009.
    1. van’t Hof MA, Frencken JE, van Palenstein WH, Holmgren CJ. The ART approach for managing dental caries: a meta-analysis. Int Dent J. 2006;56:345–351. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2006.tb00339.x.
    1. Algera TJ, Kleverlaan CJ, de Gee AJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Feilzer AJ. The influence of accelerating the setting rate by ultrasound or heat on the bond strength of glass ionomers used as orthodontic bracket cements. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:472–476. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cji041.
    1. van Duinen RN, Davidson CL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. In situ transformation of glass-ionomer into an enamel-like material. Am J Dent. 2004;17:223–227.
    1. Chen X, Cuijpers V, Fan M, Frencken JE. Marginal leakage of two newer glass-ionomer-based sealant materials assessed using micro-CT. J Dent. 2010;38:731–735. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.05.018.
    1. Symons AL, Chu CY, Meyers IA. The effect of fissure morphology and pretreatment of the enamel surface on penetration and adhesion of fissure sealants. J Oral Rehabil. 1996;23:791–798. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1996.d01-202.x.
    1. Beiruti N, Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA, Taifour D, van Palenstein Helderman WH. Caries-preventive effect of a one-time application of composite resin and glass ionomer sealants after 5 years. Caries Res. 2006;40:52–59. doi: 10.1159/000088907.
    1. Greenwood M (1926) The errors of sampling the survivorship tables [appendix 1] Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects, 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London
    1. Efron B (1982) The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. SIAM-NSF, Philadelphia
    1. Wendt LK, Koch G, Birkhed D. On the retention and effectiveness of fissure sealants 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.
    1. Folke BD, Walton JL, Feigal RJ. Occlusal sealant success over 10 years in a private practice: comparing longevity of sealants placed by dentists, hygienists, and assistants. Pediatr Dent. 2004;26:426–432.
    1. Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD, Hackenitz E. Three-year survival of one-surface ART restorations and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe. Caries Res. 1998;32:119–126. doi: 10.1159/000016441.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever