International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2016 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison of Microleakage and Penetration Depth between Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Sealants in Primary Second Molar

Pritesh N Gawali, Vishwas B Chaugule

Keywords : Fissure sealant, Microleakage, Penetration depth

Citation Information : Gawali PN, Chaugule VB. Comparison of Microleakage and Penetration Depth between Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Sealants in Primary Second Molar. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 9 (4):291-295.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1380

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).


Introduction: Optimal pit and fissure sealing is determined by surface preparation techniques and choice of materials. The performance of pit and fissure sealant materials has been intensively investigated, yet no single product is reported as an ideal sealant. In children, moisture control during cavity preparation is always a big challenge, and hence, hydrophilic sealants have been developed. Aim: To compare the microleakage and penetration depth of hydrophilic and hydrophobic sealants using acid-etching on dry and moist surfaces. Materials and methods: Recently, extracted 28 2nd primary molars are assigned to two groups (hydrophobic group I; hydrophilic group II) depending on the surface condition (dry group: A1 and B1; moist group: A2 and B2) of 7 teeth in each group. Samples from group A1 and B1 are cleaned and dried with a 3-way syringe and etched with etching gel, and sealant is applied to the fissures and cured with visible light. Sample from A2 and B2 are immersed in 0.1 mL of fresh whole human saliva for 20 seconds and dried using a pellet cotton, and the same procedure is carried out. All samples are subjected to 1000 thermal cycles and sectioned to compare the depth of penetration and microleakage. Sections will be examined under light microscope and analyzed using an image analysis software (SigmaScan). Results: The least microleakage was seen with hydrophilic sealant under moist surface condition, and the depth of penetration of hydrophobic sealant was found to be better than that of hydrophilic sealant in both dry and moist surface conditions. Conclusion: Hydrophilic pit and fissure sealants showed higher tolerance to saliva contamination with less microleakage, but in terms of penetration ability hydrophobic sealants were found to be superior. How to cite this article: Gawali PN, Chaugule VB, Panse AM. Comparison of Microleakage and Penetration Depth between Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Sealants in Primary Second Molar. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(4):291-295.

PDF Share
  1. Simonsen RJ. Potential uses of pit-and-fissure sealants in innovative ways: a review. J Public Health Dent 1982 Fall;42(4): 305-311.
  2. Yýldýz E, Dörter C, Efes B, Koray F. A comparative study of two fissure sealants: a 2-year clinical follow-up. J Oral Rehabil 2004 Oct;31(10):979-984.
  3. Kaste L, Selwitz R, Oldakowski R, Brunelle J, Winn D, Brown L. Coronal caries in primary and permanent dentition of children and adolescents 1-17 years of age. J Dent Res 2009 Feb;75:631-641.
  4. Simonsen R. Pit and fissure sealants: review of literature. Pediatric Dent 2002 Sep;24(5):393-414.
  5. Simonsen RJ. Retention and effectiveness of dental sealants after 15 years. J Am Dent Assoc 1991 Oct;122(10):34-42.
  6. Ripa LW. Sealants revisited: an update of the effectiveness of pit-and-fissure sealants. Caries Res 1993;27(Suppl 1): 77-82.
  7. Usumez F. Bond strength of porcelain laminate veneers to tooth surfaces prepared with acid and Er, Cr:YSGG laser etching. J Prosthet Dent 2003 Oct;90(1):24-30.
  8. Weerheijm K, Graaff SJ, Amerongen W. Occlusal hidden caries: a bacteriological profile. Scand J Res 2011;88:383-388.
  9. Duangthip D, Lussi A. Effects of fissure cleaning methods, drying agents, and fissure morphology on microleakage and penetration ability of sealants in vitro. Pediatr Dent 2003 Nov-Dec;25(6):527-533.
  10. Featherstone J, Nelson D. Laser effects on dental hard tissues. Adv Dent Res 1987 Oct;1(1):21-26.
  11. Cueto ET, Bunocore MG. Sealing of pit and fissures with adhesive resin. Its use in caries prevention. J Am Dent Assoc 1967 Jul;75(1):121-128.
  12. Feigal RJ. The use of pits and fissure sealants. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(5):415-422.
  13. Geiger SB, Gulayev S, Weiss EI. Improving fissure sealant quality: mechanical preparation and filling level. J Dent 2000 Aug;28(6):407-412.
  14. Zervou C, Kugel G, Leone C, Zavras A, Doherty EH, White GE. Enameloplasty effects on microleakage of pit and fissure sealants under load: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2000 Summer;24(4):279-285.
  15. Kakaboura A, Matthaiou L, Papagiannoulis L. In vitro study of penetration of flowable resin composite and compomer into occlusal fissures. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2002 Dec;3(4):205-209.
  16. Khogli AE, Cauwels R, Vercruysse C, Verbeeck R, Martens L. Microleakage and penetration of a hydrophilic sealant and a conventional resin-based sealant as a function of preparation techniques: a laboratory study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2013 Jan;23(1):13-22.
  17. Baagherian A, Akbari M, Razeain M, Amsari G. Microleakage assessment of fissure sealant following fissurotomy bur or pumice prophylaxis use before etching. Dent Res J 2013 Sep;10(5);643-646.
  18. De Craene GP, Martens LC, Dermaut LR. The invasive pit-and-fissure sealing technique in pediatric dentistry: an SEM study of a preventive restoration. ASDC J Dent Child 1988 Jan-Feb;55(1):34-42.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.