Citation Information :
Prabahar T, Chowdhary N, Konkappa KN, Vundela RR, Balamurugan S. Evaluation of Microleakage of Different Types of Pit and Fissure Sealants: An In Vitro Comparative Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15 (5):535-540.
Aim: Compare and evaluate the microleakage of different types of pit and fissure sealants, 3M ESPE Clinpro, GC Fuji Triage Capsule, and 3M ESPE Filtek Z350 XT.
Materials and methods: A total of 54 freshly extracted maxillary and mandibular premolar teeth were used and randomly divided into three groups of 18 teeth each, and the following pit and fissure sealants were used: group I—Clinpro, group II—GC Fuji Triage Capsule, and group III—Filtek Z350 XT. Samples underwent thermocycling at 5° and 55°C with a dwell time of 10 seconds for 250 cycles. The apices of the teeth were sealed with impression compound, and two coats of fingernail polish were applied and immersed in 5% methylene blue dye for 24 hours and then sectioned. The sectioned specimens were then analyzed at 4× magnification under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration and were evaluated based on Williams and Winters’ criteria.
Results: The data were collected for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics included mean, standard deviation (SD), frequency, and percentage. Inferential statistics included the Chi-squared test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the post hoc Tukey's test. The level of significance was set at 0.05 at a 95% confidence interval, and the results revealed that the mean difference of the sealants was GC Fuji Triage (2.1667), Clinpro (0.7778), and Filtek Z350 XT (0.1667).
Conclusion: Filtek Z350 XT exhibited the least microleakage when compared to Clinpro and GC Fuji Triage, with their mean difference statistically significant. Hence, Filtek Z350 XT can be a promising sealant and a restorative material.
Sridhar LP, Moses J, Rangeeth BN, et al. Comparative evaluation of the marginal sealing ability of two commercially available pit and fissure sealants. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(9):ZC01–ZC04. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/19996.8413
Bromo F, Guida A, Santoro G, et al. Pit and fissure sealants: review of literature and application technique. Minerva Stomatol 2011;60(10):529–541.
Naaman R, El-Housseiny AA, Alamoudi N. The use of pit and fissure sealants-a literature review. Dent J (Basel) 2017;5(4):34. DOI: 10.3390/dj5040034
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):36–42. DOI: 10.17354/ijss/2017/211
Kidd EA. Microleakage: a review. J Dent 1976;4(5):199–206. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(76)90048-8
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
Pardi V, Sinhoreti MAC, Pereira AC, et al. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of different materials used as pit-and-fissure sealants. Braz Dent J 2006;17(1):49–52. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402006000100011
Williams B, Laxton L, Holt RD, et al. Fissure sealants: a 4-year clinical trial comparing an experimental glass polyalkenoate cement with a bis glycidyl methacrylate resin used as fissure sealants. Br Dent J 1996;180(3):104–108. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808989
Yadav K, Prakash S. Dental caries: a review. Asian J Biomed Pharm 2016;6(53):01–07.
Babaji P, Vaid S, Deep S, et al. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strength and microleakage of different pit and fissure sealants. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2016;6(Suppl 2):S111–S115. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.184038
Ansari G, Oloomi K, Eslami B. Microleakage assessment of pit and fissure sealant with and without the use of pumice prophylaxis. Int J Paediatr Dent 2004;14(4):272–278. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2004.00565.x
Woody TL, Davis RD. The effect of eugenol-containing and eugenol-free temporary cements on microleakage in resin bonded restorations. Oper Dent 1992;17(5):175–180.
Pérez-Lajarín L, Cortés-Lillo O, García-Ballesta C, et al. Marginal microleakage of two fissure sealants: a comparative study. J Dent Child (Chic) 2003;70(1):24–28.
Hegde MN, Vyapaka P, Shetty S. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different newer direct composite resins using a self etching primer in class V cavities: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2009;12(4):160–163. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.58340
Reddy VR, Chowdhary N, Mukunda KS, et al. Retention of resin-based filled and unfilled pit and fissure sealants: a comparative clinical study. Contemp Clin Dent 2015;6(Suppl 1):S18–S23. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.152932
Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 2016;7(3):16. DOI: 10.3390/jfb7030016
Ovrebo RC, Raadal M. Microleakage in fissures sealed with resin or glass ionomer cement. Scand J Dent Res 1990;98(1):66–69. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1990.tb00941.x
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.
Garg N, Indushekar KR, Saraf BG, et al. Comparative evaluation of penetration ability of three pit and fissure sealants and their relationship with fissure patterns. J Dent (Shiraz) 2018;19(2):92–99.