International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Clinical Evaluation of the Retention of Self-adhering Flowable Composite as Fissure Sealant in 6–9-year-old Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Paliki Bhuvaneswari

Keywords : Pit and fissure sealant, Randomized controlled trial, Sealant retention, Self-adhering flowable composite, Unfilled resin sealant

Citation Information : Bhuvaneswari P. Clinical Evaluation of the Retention of Self-adhering Flowable Composite as Fissure Sealant in 6–9-year-old Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15 (3):322-326.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2382

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-06-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: To evaluate the retention rate of self-adhering flowable composite as fissure sealant in comparison with the unfilled resin sealant on first permanent molars of 6–9-year-old children. Materials and methods: A 2-arm, split-mouth randomized controlled trial included 100 children of age 6–9 years with completely erupted mandibular first permanent molars. A total of 200 teeth were randomly divided into two groups, group I: self-adhering flowable composite; group II: unfilled resin sealant. Sealants were placed on the mandibular first permanent molars and the children were recalled at 6, 12, and 18 months intervals to evaluate the retention rate. Chi-square test was used to analyze the data. Results: Self-adhering flowable composite has shown a complete retention rate of 67%, 47%, and 46% at 6, 12, and 18-month intervals, respectively, whereas unfilled resin sealant has shown 41%, 8%, and 5% retention rate at 6, 12, and 18-month intervals, respectively. The difference in the complete sealant retention rates between the groups is found to be statistically highly significant at all the follow-up intervals (p = 0.0004, 0.0001, and 0.0001 at 6, 12, and 18-month intervals, respectively). In both groups, maximum sealant loss occurred between 6 and 12-month intervals. Retention rates were higher at 6 months intervals which were significantly reduced over 18 months intervals. Conclusion: Self-adhering flowable composite has shown a higher retention rate compared to unfilled resin sealant at all the time intervals. The retention rate of both materials decreased with time. However, the loss of sealant was more with unfilled resin sealant. Clinical significance: In pediatric dental practice, the elimination of a step in restorative dentistry protocol makes a big difference as time is a critical factor in obtaining children's cooperation. The use of self-adhering materials eliminates the step of bonding agent application, which simplifies the restorative protocol and makes the clinical practice effective. Therefore, these self-adhering flowable composite resin materials can be considered fissure sealants in routine clinical practice.

PDF Share
  1. Khanna R, Pandey RK, Singh N. Morphology of pits and fissures reviewed through Scanning Electron Microscope. Dentistry 2015;5(4):287. DOI:10.4172/2161-1122.1000287
  2. Simonsen RJ. Clinical Applications of the Acid Etch Technique. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc; 1978;19–42.
  3. 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.
  4. Khare M, Suprabha BS, Shenoy R, et al. Evaluation of pit-and-fissure sealants placed with four different bonding protocols: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent 2017;27(6):444–453. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12281
  5. Tonn EM, Ryge G. Three year clinical evaluation of four sealants in Los Altos, California. J Dent Res 1982;61:331.
  6. 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
  7. Bravo M, Montero J, Bravo JJ, et al. Sealant and fluoride varnish in caries: a randomized trial. J Dent Res 2005;84(12):1138–1143. DOI:10.1177/154405910508401209
  8. Gwinnett AJ, Buonocore MG. Adhesives and caries prevention. A preliminary report. Br Dent J 1965;119:77–80.
  9. Corona SA, Borsatto MC, Garcia L, et al. 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;15(1):44–50. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00605.x
  10. Eliades A, Birpou E, Eliades T, et al. Self-adhesive restoratives as pit and fissure sealants: a comparative laboratory study. Dent Mater 2013;29(7):752–762. DOI: 10.1016/
  11. Schuldt C, Birlbauer S, Pitchika V, et al. Shear bond strength and microleakage of a new self-etching/self-adhesive pit and fissure sealant. J Adhes Dent 2015;17(6):491–497. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a35255
  12. Rahimian-Imam S, Ramazani N, Fayazi MR. Marginal microleakage of conventional fissure sealants and self-adhering flowable composite as fissure sealant in permanent teeth. J Dent (Tehran) 2015;12(6):430–435.
  13. Harsha PP, Dhruv KV. Comparative evaluation of marginal microleakage of conventional fissure sealants and self adhering flowable composites as fissure sealant in permanent teeth- an in vitro study. Int J Sci Study 2017;5(2):36–40. DOI: 10.17354/ijss/2017/211
  14. Wadhwa S, A Nayak U, Kappadi D, et al. 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. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1552
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.