International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Assessment of Compomers and Ormocers as Pit and Fissure Sealants in Permanent Molars among Children Aged 7–9 Years

Saraswathy M Saravanan, Daya Srinivasan, AR Senthil Eagappan, S Divya Priyal

Keywords : Dental caries, Pediatric dentistry, Pit and fissure sealants

Citation Information : Saravanan SM, Srinivasan D, Eagappan AS, Priyal SD. Comparative Assessment of Compomers and Ormocers as Pit and Fissure Sealants in Permanent Molars among Children Aged 7–9 Years. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (7):742-747.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2954

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 12-09-2024

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


Abstract

Introduction: In recent years, the dental profession's focus has shifted from the therapeutic to the preventive aspect of dental caries. Pit and fissure sealants, optimal fluoridation, healthy dietary habits, and good oral hygiene have been recommended for caries prevention. Many sealant materials are available on the market. Compomers are hybrid dental materials that are modified composite resins with polyacids. The esthetic properties of traditional composite systems are combined with the fluoride-releasing and adhesive properties of glass ionomer cement (GIC). Organically modified ceramic (Ormocer) material has high abrasion resistance and better aesthetics, similar to natural teeth. Aim: To compare the sealing ability of compomer and ormocer as pit and fissure sealants in permanent mandibular first molars of 7–9-year-old children. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study with a split-mouth design was conducted on 88 children aged 7–9 years who attended the Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry. Children were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. By tossing a coin, the placement of sealant material was selected for the right permanent first molar. Rubber dam isolation was done. The tooth surface was etched and washed. The respective sealants were applied. Sealants were cured with visible light, and occlusion was checked with articulating paper. Subsequently, the second sealant was placed in the next appointment, following the same clinical procedure in the opposite quadrant. Clinical evaluation was done at 3, 6, and 9 months for retention, marginal integrity, color match, wear, and presence of caries. The criteria were graded and rated as alpha, beta, and charlie based on modified Ryge United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. All the data were statistically analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software 20.0. Results: The retention rate of ormocer at the 9-month review interval was 88.3%. There was a statistically significant difference in retention rates between compomer and ormocer (p = 0.003). The marginal integrity and wear of ormocer at the 9-month review interval were 84.4% compared with compomer, which was statistically significant with p = 0.010 and p = 0.035, respectively. Children with the fewest caries belonged to the ormocer group (p = 0.010) compared to the compomer group. Conclusion: Children with ormocer as a pit and fissure sealant showed good retention, remarkable marginal integrity, absence of wear, and fewer dental caries compared to compomer sealants. Hence, ormocer-based sealants can be used in pediatric dental practice to protect children's oral hygiene and promote a healthy lifestyle.


PDF Share
  1. Young DA, Nový BB, Zeller GG, et al. The American Dental Association Caries Classification System for Clinical Practice. J Am Dent Assoc 2015;146(2):79–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2014.11.018
  2. Prabakar J, John J, Arumugham IM, et al. Comparative evaluation of retention, cariostatic effect, and discoloration of conventional and hydrophilic sealants - a single-blinded randomized split-mouth clinical trial. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(6):233–239. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_132_18
  3. Yon MJY, Gao SS, Chen KJ, et al. Medical model in caries management. Dent J (Basel) 2019;7:37. DOI: 10.3390/dj7020037
  4. Roberts JF. Fundamentals of pediatric dentistry. Mathewson RJ, Primosch RE, Robertson D (Eds). London: Quintessence; 1987. p. 435.
  5. McDonald SP, Sheiham A. The distribution of caries on different tooth surfaces at varying levels of caries - a compilation of data from 18 previous studies. Community Dent Health 1992;9(1):39–48.
  6. Melgar RA, Pereira JT, Luz PB, et al. Differential impacts of caries classification in children and adults: a comparison of ICDAS and DMF-T. Br Dent J 2016;27(6):761–766. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201600990
  7. Altaf G, Garg S, Saraf BG, et al. Clinical study of pit and fissure morphology and its relationship with caries prevalence in young permanent first molars. J South Asian Assoc Pediatr Dent 2019;2(2):56–60.
  8. Simonsen RJ, Neal RC. A review of the clinical application and performance of pit and fissure sealants. Aust Dent J 2011;56(1):45–58. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01295.x
  9. Bowen RL. Composite and sealant resins: past, present and future. Pediatr Dent 1982;4(1):10–15.
  10. Schröder HE. Oral Strukturbiologie. Stuttgart: Thieme; 1982. pp. 20–159.
  11. V Rohr MA, Makinson OF, Burrow MF. Pits and fissures: morphology. ASDC J Dent Child 1991;58(2):97–103.
  12. Nagano T. Relation between the form of pit and fissure and the primary lesion of caries. Dent Abstr 1961;6:4265.
  13. McLean JW, Wilson AD. Fissure sealing and filling with adhesive glass-ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1974;136(7):269–276.
  14. 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 Prev Dent 2008;26(3):114–120. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.43192
  15. Prathibha B, Reddy PP, Anjum MS, et al. Sealants revisited: an efficacy battle between the two major types of sealants – a randomized controlled clinical trial. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2019;16:36–41.
  16. Forss H, Halme E. Retention of a glass ionomer cement and a resin-based fissure sealant and effect on carious outcome after 7 years. Community dentistry and oral epidemiology 1998;26(1):21–25.
  17. Ruse ND. What is a compomer? J Can Dent Assoc 1999;65:500–504.
  18. Kantovitz KR, Pascon FM, Alonso RC, et al. Marginal adaptation of pit and fissure sealants after thermal and chemical stress. A SEM study. Am J Dent 2008;21(6):377–382.
  19. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, et al. Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2000;16(1):33–40. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00082-2
  20. Arenholt-Bindslev D, Breinholt V, Preiss A, et al. Time-related bisphenol-A content and estrogenic activity in saliva samples collected in relation to placement of fissure sealants. Clin Oral Investig 1999;3(3):120–125. DOI: 10.1007/s007840050089
  21. Wright JT, Crall JJ, Fontana M, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2016;147(8):672–682. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.06.001
  22. 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
  23. Singh A, Konark, Patil V, et al. Comparative evaluation of occlusal pits and fissures morphology modification techniques before application of sealants: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2020;31:247–251. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_956_19
  24. Feigal RJ. Sealants and preventive restorations: review of effectiveness and clinical changes for improvement. Pediatr Dent 1998;20:85–92.
  25. Rugg-Gunn AJ. Dental caries. Paediatric Dentistry. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. pp. 95–114.
  26. Pérez-Lajarin L, Cortés-Lillo O, García-Ballesta C, et al. Marginal microleakage of two fissure sealants: a comparative study. J Dent Child 2003;70:24–28.
  27. Pardi V, Pereira AC, Ambrosano GM, et al. Clinical evaluation of three different materials used as pit and fissure sealant: 24-months results. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29(2):133–137. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.29.2.e44h17387x324345
  28. Guler C, Yilmaz Y. A two-year clinical evaluation of glass ionomer and ormocer based fissure sealants. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013;37(3):263–267. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.37.3.38761uwwm7kpj616
  29. Yilmaz Y, Beldüz N, Eyübo O. A two-year evaluation of four different fissure sealants. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010;11(2):88–92. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262718
  30. Dukić W, Lulić Dukić O, Milardović S, et al. Clinical comparison of flowable composite to other fissure sealing materials–a 12 months study. Coll Antropol 2007;31(4):1019–1024.
  31. Ganss C, Klimek J, Gleim A. One-year clinical evaluation of the retention and quality of two fluoride-releasing sealants. Clin Oral Investig 1999;3:188–193. DOI: 10.1007/s007840050100
  32. Simonsen RJ. Retention and effectiveness of dental sealant after 15 years. J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122(10):34–42. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1991.0289
  33. Gungor HC, Altay N, Alpar R. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite-based fissure sealant: two-year results. Oper Dent 2004;29(3):254–260.
  34. Yap AU, Soh MS. Post-gel polymerization contraction of “low shrinkage” composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2004;29(2):182–187.
  35. Kim SK, Kim KN, Chang IT, et al. A study of the effects of chewing patterns on occlusal wear. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(11):1048–1055. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00761.x
  36. Pardi V, Sinhoreti MA, Pereira AC, et al. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of different materials used as pit-and-fissure sealants. Braz Dent J 2006;17:49–52. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402006000100011
  37. Llodra JC, Bravo M, Delgado-Rodriguez M, et al. Factors influencing the effectiveness of sealants—a meta-analysis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1993;21(5):261–268. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1993.tb00771.x
  38. Gomez SS, Basili CP, Emilson CG. A 2-year clinical evaluation of sealed non-cavitated approximal posterior carious lesions in adolescents. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9:239–243. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0010-7
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.