International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of the Effect of Different Bonding Agents on the Microleakage of Two Hydrophilic Pit and Fissure Sealants: An Ex Vivo Study

V Rohini, P Praveen, A Anantharaj, S Prathibha Rani, R Sudhir, Anisha S Rao

Keywords : Embrace WetBond, Ionoseal, Microleakage, Pit and fissure sealants

Citation Information : Rohini V, Praveen P, Anantharaj A, Rani SP, Sudhir R, Rao AS. Comparison of the Effect of Different Bonding Agents on the Microleakage of Two Hydrophilic Pit and Fissure Sealants: An Ex Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (3):270-273.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2809

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim: To compare the impact of fifth- and seventh-generation bonding agents on the microleakage between Embrace WetBond sealants and Ionoseal. Materials and methods: Forty extracted human premolar teeth were used for the study and grouped according to different sealants and bonding agents—group I: Embrace WetBond sealant with fifth-generation bonding agent; group II: Embrace WetBond sealant with seventh-generation bonding agent; group III: Ionoseal with fifth-generation bonding agent; group IV: Ionoseal with seventh-generation bonding agent. For microleakage evaluation, all the teeth were subjected to invasive sealant placement using the respective sealant materials in combination with bonding agents as specified. The treated teeth were stored at 37°C for 24 hours and then thermocycled for 100 cycles at temperatures of 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 30 seconds. In order to assess microleakage, the samples were immersed in 0.2% methylene blue dye for 24 hours, then sectioned in buccolingual direction, and evaluated under stereomicroscope. Results: The mean microleakage scores in group III were highest at 0.90 ± 0.57, while the least was in group IV at 0.30 ± 0.68, indicating that Ionoseal with seventh-generation bonding agent was the most effective. However, when the mean microleakage scores of the four groups were compared using Kruskal–Wallis test, it indicated that the differences were not statistically significant.

PDF Share
  1. Ealla KKR, Kumar AN, Turagam N, et al. Knowledge analysis of pit and fissure sealants among the dental students of South India. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2018;8(6):508–512. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_238_18
  2. Haricharan PB, Barad N, Patil CR, et al. Dawn of a new age fissure sealant? A study evaluating the clinical performance of embrace WetBond and ART sealants: results from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur J Dent 2019;13(4):503–509. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1696894
  3. Wright JT, Tampi MP, Graham L, et al. Sealants for preventing and arresting pit-and-fissure occlusal caries in primary and permanent molars. JADA 2016;38(4):282–308.
  4. Lindemeyer RG. The use of glass ionomer sealants on newly erupting permanent molars. J Can Dent Assoc 2007;73(2):131–134.
  5. Malek S, Hossain M, Gafur MA, et al. Comparative study of resin sealant and resin modified glass ionomer as pit and fissure sealant. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Med Univ J 2017;10(1):21–26. DOI: 10.3329/bsmmuj.v10i1.31366
  6. Khodadadi E, Esmaeili B, Karimian N, et al. Evaluation of microleakage of Ionoseal filling material as a fissure sealant agent. Caspian J Dent Res 2014;3(2):39–45. DOI: 10.22088/cjdr.3.2.39
  7. Bandi M, Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S. Retention and effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants placed with or without bonding agent in young permanent teeth: a randomized clinical trial with a year follow-up. Indian J Dent Res 2020;31(6):877–882. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_779_19
  8. Khodadadi E, GhAhmadi Zenouz G, Pachenari N, et al. Comparative evaluation of surface hardness of different resin-modified glass ionomers and a compomer. J Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;4(3):1–9. DOI: 10.18869/acadpub.3dj.4.3.1
  9. Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G, et al. Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2017;8(1):1–17. DOI: 10.11138/ads/2017.8.1.001
  10. Prabhakar AR, Murthy SA, Sugandhan S. Comparative evaluation of the length of resin tags, viscosity and microleakage of pit and fissure sealants - an in vitro scanning electron microscope study. Contemp Clin Dent 2011;2(4):324–330. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.91797
  11. 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
  12. Al-Jobair A, Al-Hammad N, Alsadhan S, et al. Retention and caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based sealants: an 18-month-randomized clinical trial. Dent Mater J 2017;36(5):654–661. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2016-225
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.