One-year Clinical Evaluation of Retention Ability and Anticaries Effect of a Glass Ionomer-based and a Resin-based Fissure Sealant on Permanent First Molars: An In Vivo Study
Sheeja R Mathew, Retna K Narayanan, Kannan Vadekkepurayil, Jeeva Puthiyapurayil
Citation Information :
Mathew SR, Narayanan RK, Vadekkepurayil K, Puthiyapurayil J. One-year Clinical Evaluation of Retention Ability and Anticaries Effect of a Glass Ionomer-based and a Resin-based Fissure Sealant on Permanent First Molars: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019; 12 (6):553-559.
Aim: To evaluate and compare the retention ability, anticaries effect and marginal discoloration when sealed with a glass ionomer-based sealant (Fusion i-seal) and a resin-based fissure sealant (Helioseal-F) on permanent first molars. Materials and methods: Caries free, fully erupted permanent first molars of 50 children between 6 years and 8 years were sealed with pit and fissure sealants under rubber dam isolation. Glass ionomer-based sealant was applied on a permanent first molar and the contralateral molar with resin-based sealant. The sealants were evaluated at regular intervals for a period of 1 year. Statistical analysis was done by Chi-square test. Results: Higher retention rates were noted for resin-based sealant (88%) compared to glass ionomer-based sealant (78%). None of the teeth sealed with resin sealant developed caries whereas 2% of teeth sealed with glass ionomer sealant developed caries. Marginal discoloration was not noted in teeth sealed with glass ionomer sealant whereas slight marginal discoloration was noted for 6% of teeth sealed with resin sealant. Conclusion: Clinically a difference was noted in the retention rate, anticaries effect and marginal discoloration whereas statistically no significant difference was noted for the two sealants after 1 year. Clinical significance: Pit and fissure sealants are highly effective and economical in preventing occlusal caries in young permanent tooth with low failure rate.
Nupur N, Ullal NA, Khandelwal V. A 1 year clinical evaluation of fissure sealants on permanent first molars. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(1):54–59. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.94547.
Subramaniam P, Konde S, Mandanna DK. Retention of a resin-based sealant and a glass ionomer used as a fissure sealant: a comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent 2008;26(3):114–120. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.43192.
Yengopal V, Mickenautsh S, Bezerra AC, et al. Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: a meta analysis. J Oral Sci 2009;51(3):373–382. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.51.373.
Kishor A, Goswami M, Chaudhary S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the retention ability of amorphous calcium phosphate containing and illuminating pit and fissure sealants in 6–9 year old age group. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2013;31(3):159–164. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.117966.
Bhat PK, Konde S, Raj SN, et al. Moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant: a boon. Contem Clin Dent 2013;4(3):343–348. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.118394.
Feigal RJ. The use of pit and fissure sealantsconsensus congress discussion of issues, methods and recommendations. J Minnesota Dent Assoc 2003;82(5):415–422.
Welbury R, Raadal M, Lygidakis NA. Guidelines for the use of pit and fissure sealants. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2004;5(3):179–184.
Parul M. The use of sealants in dentistry – a review. Int J Clin Dent Sci 2012;3(1):102–115.
Ganss C, Klimek J, Gleim A. One year clinical evaluation of the retention and quality of two fluoride releasing sealants. Clin Oral Investig 1999;3(4):188–193. DOI: 10.1007/s007840050100.
Torppa-Saarinen E, Seppa L. Short-term retention of glass-ionomer fissure sealants. Proc Finn Dent Soc 1990;86(2):83–88.
Kamala BK, Hegde AM. Fuji III vs Fuji VII glass ionomer sealants – a clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;33(1):29–33. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.33.1.p8240041v8313770.
Skrinjaric K, Vranic DN, Glavina D, et al. Heat-treated glass ionomer cement fissure sealants: retention after 1 year follow-up. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18(5):368–373. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2007.00896.x.
Ugur E, Hande SS. Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant: a 24 month split mouth, randomized, and controlled study. J Dent 2014;42(2):149–157. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013. 11.015.
Shashikiran ND, Subbareddy VV. A clinical comparison of visible light activated, unfilled, fluoride and non-fluoride containing and filled fluoride containing pit and fissure sealants. J Conserv Dent 2004;7(2):70–76.
Lygidakis NA, Dimou G, Stamataki E. Retention of fissure sealants using two different methods of application in teeth with hypomineralised molars (MIH): a 4 year clinical study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2009;10(4):223–226. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262686.
Oliveira FS, da Silva SM, Machado MA, et al. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based material as occlusal sealants: a longitudinal clinical performance. J Dent Child (Chic) 2008;75(2): 134–143.
Bhatia MR, Patel AR, Shirol DD. Evaluation of two resin based fissure sealants: a comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2012;30(3):227–230. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.105015.
Feigal RJ. Sealants and preventive restorations: review of effectiveness and clinical changes for improvement. Pediatr Dent 1998;20(2): 85–92.
Charbeneau GT, Dennison JB. Clinical success and potential failure after single application of a pit and fissure sealant: a four-year report. J Am Dent Assoc 1979;98(4):559–564. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1979.0112.
Poulsen S, Beiruti N, Sadat N. A comparison of retention and the effect on caries of fissure sealing with a glass-ionomer and a resin-based sealant. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29(4):298–301. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2001.290409.x.
Antonson SA, Antonson DE, Brener S, et al. Twenty-four month clinical evaluation of fissure sealants on partially erupted permanent first molars: glass ionomer versus resin-based sealant. J Am Dent Assoc 2012;143(2):115–122. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0121.