International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2025 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Effect of Enamel Deproteinization Prior to Etching on the Clinical Performance of Resin-based Pit and Fissure Sealants: A Split-mouth Double-blinded Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Sneha M Nair, Krishnapriya S Nene, Sunnypriyatham Tirupathi, Aditi A Mathur, Hania A Khan, Neil M Godbole, Prachi P Patil, Sayali A Deolikar

Keywords : Children, Dental sealants, Enamel deproteinization, Pit and fissure sealants, Preventive dentistry, Sodium hypochlorite

Citation Information : Nair SM, Nene KS, Tirupathi S, Mathur AA, Khan HA, Godbole NM, Patil PP, Deolikar SA. Effect of Enamel Deproteinization Prior to Etching on the Clinical Performance of Resin-based Pit and Fissure Sealants: A Split-mouth Double-blinded Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025; 18 (2):119-125.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3051

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-03-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2025; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Enamel deproteinization using sodium hypochlorite entails the oxidation of organic components, resulting in the dissolution of proteinaceous components and subsequent cleansing of the enamel substrate. This oxidative treatment augments surface energy and promotes favorable interfacial interactions, thereby enhancing the adhesion and performance of dental materials, ultimately leading to better clinical outcomes. Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of enamel deproteinization prior to etching on the retention of pit and fissure sealants (PFS) at different time intervals among 6–14-year-old children. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite on the clinical performance and retention of pit and fissure sealants in permanent molars. Materials and methods: A double-blind randomized controlled trial using a split-mouth design was conducted for a period of 1 year. The clinical trial registry was done CTRI/2023/06/053542. About 20 children aged 6–14 years, who required bilateral PFS for permanent molars, were included and divided into 20 units for each group. The contralateral side served as the control for the same patient. Randomization was performed using computer-generated numbers (Randomizer.com). Treatment was divided into two groups: group I: pit and fissure sealant with enamel deproteinization prior to etching, group II: pit and fissure sealant without enamel deproteinization. A blinded evaluator assessed the clinical outcome using modified Simonsen's criteria. Results: At the end of 12 months of follow-up, the results in the current study show that there is a statistical significance between groups I and II. In group I, only 10 teeth have experienced the event, while in group II, it is maximum, accounting for 33 teeth. It was found that the retention rate in group I is 88.1%, while in group II, it is 60.0%. Thus, we can conclude that the retention of pit and fissure sealant in group I is significantly better than in group II. Conclusion: The present trial yielded notable enhancements in the retention outcomes of PFS following the incorporation of an adjunctive procedure involving enamel deproteinization utilizing 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, combined with intermediate bonding, over a 12-month observation period. This approach holds promise as a strategic intervention for augmenting adhesion and optimizing the efficacy of PFS as a preventive measure.


PDF Share
  1. 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
  2. Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Forss H, Walsh T, et al. Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;7(7):CD001830. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub5
  3. Griffin SO, Oong E, Kohn W, et al. The effectiveness of sealants in managing caries lesions. J Dent Res 2008;87(2):169–174. DOI: 10.1177/154405910808700211
  4. Kühnisch J, Mansmann U, Heinrich-Weltzien R, et al. Longevity of materials for pit and fissure sealing—results from a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 2012;28(3):298–303. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.002
  5. Agrawal A, Shigli A. Comparison of six different methods of cleaning and preparing occlusal fissure surface before placement of pit and fissure sealant: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2012;30(1):51–55. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.95582
  6. Hegde RJ, Coutinho RC. Comparison of different methods of cleaning and preparing occlusal fissure surface before placement of pit and fissure sealants: an in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2016;34(2):111–114. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.180403
  7. Aggarwal VP, Mathur A, Mathur A. A 1-year appraisal of pit and fissure sealants following disinfection with and without chlorhexidine solution: an in vivo randomized trial. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2018;36(4):402–406. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_165_18
  8. Fernandez-Barrera MA, da Silva AF, Pontigo-Loyola AP, et al. The effect of deproteinizing agents on bond strength of resin-based materials to enamel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. J Adhes Dent 2021;23:287–296. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.b1649893
  9. Garrocho-Rangel A, Lozano-Vázquez C, Butrón-Tellez-Girón C, et al. In vitro assessment of retention and microleakage in pit and fissure sealants following enamel pre-etching with sodium hypochlorite deproteinisation. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2015;16(3):212–216.
  10. Bayrak GD, Gurdogan-Guler EB, Yildirim Y, et al. Assessment of shear bond strength and microleakage of fissure sealant following enamel deproteinization: an in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent 2020;12(3):e220–e226. DOI: 10.4317/jced.56281
  11. Mohammadi N, Karimkhani A, Bagheri R, et al. The effect of sodium hypochlorite enamel pretreatment on the shear bond strength of fissure sealant using a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a fluoride-releasing self-etch resin adhesive. Dent Res J 2021;18:13.
  12. Rishika, Garg N, Mayall SS, et al. Combined effect of enamel deproteinization and intermediate bonding in the retention of pit and fissure sealants in children: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;42(6):427–433. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4625-42.6.4
  13. 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
  14. Alves LS, Zenkner JEA, Wagner MB, et al. Eruption stage of permanent molars and occlusal caries activity/arrest. J Dent Res 2014;93(7 Suppl):114S–119S. DOI: 10.1177/0022034514537646
  15. Pandey P, Nandkeoliar T, Tikku AP, et al. Prevalence of dental caries in the Indian population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int Soc Prev Commun Dent 2021;11(3):256–265. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_42_21
  16. Stoica SN, Moraru SA, Nimigean VR, et al. Dental caries in the first permanent molar during the mixed dentition stage. Maedica (Bucur) 2023;18(2):246–256. DOI: 10.26574/maedica.2023.18.2.246
  17. Muntean A, Sarosi C, Sava S, et al. Dental sealant composition-retention assessment in young permanent molars. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(7):1646. DOI: 10.3390/ma14071646
  18. Ayman E, Amera A, Khursheed AM. Sodium hypochlorite as a deproteinizing agent optimize orthodontic brackets adhesion using resin modified glass ionomer cement. Austin J Dent 2016;3:1037.
  19. Espinosa R, Valencia R, Uribe M, et al. Enamel deproteinization and its effect on acid etching: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;33:13–19. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.33.1.ng5462w5746j766p
  20. Espinosa R, Valencia R, Uribe M, et al. Resin replica in enamel deproteinization and its effect on acid etching. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010;35:47–51. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.1.u425308167271132
  21. Ekambaram M, Anthonappa RP, Govindool SR, et al. Comparison of deproteinization agents on bonding to developmentally hypomineralized enamel. J Dent 2017;67:94–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.004
  22. Hasija P, Sachdev V, Mathur S, et al. Deproteinizing agents as an effective enamel bond enhancer—an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;41:280–283. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.4.280
  23. Aras S, Küçükeşmen C, Küçükeşmen HC, et al. Deproteinization treatment on bond strengths of primary, mature and immature permanent tooth enamel. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013;37:275–279.
  24. Ahuja B, Yeluri R, Baliga S, et al. Enamel deproteinization before acid etching—a scanning electron microscopic observation. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010;35:169–172. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.2.9gw7147381836380
  25. Ramakrishna Y, Bhoomika A, Harleen N, et al. Enamel deproteinization after acid etching—is it worth the effort? Dentistry 2014;4:1–5. DOI: 10.4172/2161-1122.1000200
  26. Roopa KB, Abraham AB, Poornima P, et al. Evaluation of deproteinization on clinical success and longevity of pit and fissure sealants on erupting permanent first molars—an In vivo study. Int J Community Dent 2019;7:42–48. DOI: 10.4103/ijcd.ijcd_1_20
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.