Comparison and Evaluation of the Retention, Cariostatic Effect, and Discoloration of Conventional Clinpro 3M ESPE and Hydrophilic Ultraseal XT Hydro among 12–15-year-old Schoolchildren for a Period of 6 Months: A Single-blind Randomized Clinical Trial
Subhashree Mohapatra, Jayashri Prabakar, Meignana Arumugham Indiran, R Pradeep Kumar, D Sri Sakthi
Citation Information :
Mohapatra S, Prabakar J, Indiran MA, Kumar RP, Sakthi DS. Comparison and Evaluation of the Retention, Cariostatic Effect, and Discoloration of Conventional Clinpro 3M ESPE and Hydrophilic Ultraseal XT Hydro among 12–15-year-old Schoolchildren for a Period of 6 Months: A Single-blind Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020; 13 (6):688-693.
Introduction: Pit and fissures are more prone to caries as compared to smooth surfaces. Sealing the pit and fissures with sealants is considered to be highly effective in the prevention of pit and fissure caries. Hydrophobic sealants are technique sensitive in nature. Ultraseal XT Hydro sealant is moisture tolerant which incorporates the benefits of both hydrophilic and hydrophobic sealants into one unique chemistry. Hence, the study was conducted to compare and evaluate the retention, cariostatic effect, and discoloration of conventional Clinpro™ 3M™ ESPE™ and hydrophilic Ultraseal XT Hydro sealants among 12–15-year-old schoolchildren for 6 months. Materials and methods: It was a single-blinded, randomized split-mouth clinical trial. Schoolchildren aged 12–15 years were recruited in this clinical trial. Clinpro sealant and Ultraseal XT Hydro were placed in the right and left quadrant molars, respectively, and were assigned as group I and II. The sample size arrived was 60 teeth per group and at 30 patients based on the computer-generated random sequence. Sealant coverage between the two sealants was compared using Mann–Whitney test and Z test for proportions. Results: After 6 months, it was seen that 10 teeth out of 44 (22.72%) with Clinpro had the sealant covering all the fissures compared to Ultraseal XT Hydro which was only 9%. Fifty-nine percent of retention rate was seen with Clinpro compared to Ultraseal XT Hydro sealant (27.27%). Caries incidence was higher in the case of group II. No difference was observed with regard to the discoloration of the sealants. Conclusion: It was concluded that for a longer follow-up period conventional Clinpro™ 3M™ ESPE™ was better than Ultra XT Hydro seal in terms of retention and cariostatic effect.
Benzian H, Hobdell M, Holmgren C, et al. Political priority of global oral health: an analysis of reasons for international neglect. Int Dent J 2011;61(3):124–130. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2011.00028.x.
Young DA, Novy BB, Zeller GG. American dental association council on scientific affairs. The American Dental Association Caries Classification System for Clinical Practice: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. JADA 2015;146: 79–86.
Beauchamp J, Caufield PW, Crall JJ, et al. Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American dental association council on scientific affairs. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139(3):257–268. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0155.
Morales E, Martínez A, Hernández J, et al. Evaluation of marginal seal and microleakage of a sealant modified with silver nanoparticles in primary molars: In vitro study. ODOVTOS-Int J Dental S 2014;16: 107–113.
ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. Use of Pit and Fissure Sealants: Evidence- based clinical recommendations. JADA 2008;139(3): 257–268.
Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealants. In: Clinical Applications of the Acid Etch Technique. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc; 1978:19–42.
Ultradent Products. Inc. Product guide for ultraseal XT hydro 2013.
Bao Ying Liu, Yue Xiao, Chun Hung Chu and Edward Chin Man Lo. Glass ionomer ART sealant and fluoride releasing resin sealant in fissure caries prevention - results from a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2014 14(1):54.
Kumaran P. Clinical evaluation of the retention of different pit and fissure sealants: A 1-year study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013;6(3):183–187.
Deery C. A proposed method for assessing the quality of sealants -the CCC Sealant Evaluation Criteria. Community. Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2001;29(2):83–91.
Joseph O Donnell P. In vivo evaluation of Embrace TM Wetbond TM Pit And Fissure Sealant. nternal Report 2003.
Richard Mathewson J, Robert Primosch E. Fundamentals of Pediatric Dentistry. 3rd ed. Quintessence Publishing Co. 2008;119-120.
Jane AW. Pit and fissure sealants in High-Caries-Risk Individuals. J. Dent. Educ. 2001;65(10):1084–1090.
Wladimir Aranda, Frederic Courson, Michel Degrange. In vitro Evaluation of Embrace TM Wetbond TM pit and fissure sealant. European Cells and Materials 2005;9(1):73–74.
Michael Buonocore G. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling material to enamel surfaces. J. Dent. Res. 1955;34(6):849–853.
Aa Karina Mascarenhas, Huda Nazar, Sabiha Al-Mutawaa, Pramod Soparkar. Effectiveness of primer and bond in sealant retention and caries prevention. Pediatric Dentistry 2008;30(1):25–28.
Strassler HE, Grebosky M, Porter J. Success with pit and fissure sealants. Dent Today 2005;24(5):124–140.
Howard Strassler E, Joseph O'Donnell P. A Unique Moisture-Tolerant, Resin-Based Pit-and-Fissure Sealant: Clinical Technique and Research Results. Inside Dentistry 2008;4(9):108–110.
Subramaniam P, Shurti Jayasurya, K.L. Girish Babu. Evaluation of glass carbomer sealant and a moisture tolerant resin sealant -A comparative study, Int. J. of Dent. Sci. and Res. 2015;3(1):1–8.
Parnell CA, O'Farrell M, Howell F, et al. Evaluation of a community fissure sealant programme in County Meath, Ireland. Community Dent. Health. 2003;20(3):146–152.
E Karaman, Yazici AR, Tuncer D, et al. A 48-month clinical evaluation of fissure sealants placed with different adhesive systems. Oper. Dent. 2013;38(4):369–375.
Ninawe N, Ullal NA, Khandelwal V. A 1-year clinical evaluation of fissure sealants on permanent first molars. Contemp. Clin. Dent. 2012;3(2):54–59.
Raadal M, Laegreid O, Laegreid KV, et al. Fissure sealing of permanent first molars in children receiving a high standard of prophylactic care. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1984;12(2):65–68.
Jodkowska E. Efficacy of pit and fissure sealing: long-term clinical observations. Quintessence Int. 2008;39(7):593–602.
Mertz-Fairhurst EJ, Schuster GS, Fairhurst CW. Arresting caries by sealants: results of a clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc. 1986;112(2): 194–197.
Rajashekar Reddy V, Nagalakshmi Chowdhary, M. C. Pradeep. Retention of resin-based filled and unfilled pit and fissure sealants: A comparative clinical study. Contemp Clin Dent 2015;6(1): 18–23.
Charanjeet Singh, Kamalpreet Kaur, Kavisha Kapoor. Retention of pit and fissure sealant versus flowable composite: An in vivo one-year comparative evaluation. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2019;37(4):372–377.
Sachin Gowardhan Khatri, Kavita Ashok Madan, Samuel Raj Srinivasan, Shashidhar Acharya. Retention of moisture-tolerant fluoride-releasing sealant and amorphous calcium phosphate-containing sealant in 6-9-year-old children: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2019;37(1):92–98.
Beslot-Neveu A, Courson F, Ruse ND: Physico-chemical approach to pit and fissure sealant infiltration and spreading mechanisms. Pediatr Dent, 34:57–61, 2012.
Eliades A, Birpou E, Eliades T, et al. Self-adhesive restoratives as pit and fissure sealants: a comparative laboratory study. Dent Mater 2013;29:752–762.
Akurathi Ratnaditya, Mallela George Manoj Kumar, Sai Sankar et al. Clinical evaluation of retention in hydrophobic and hydrophillic pit and fissure sealants-A Two Year Follow-Up Study. J Young Pharm 2015;7(3):171–179.