International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  17 (2024)
Volume  16 (2023)
Volume  15 (2022)
Volume  14 (2021)
Volume  13 (2020)
Volume  12 (2019)
Volume  11 (2018)
Volume  10 (2017)
Volume  9 (2016)
Volume  8 (2015)
Volume  7 (2014)
Volume  6 (2013)
Volume  5 (2012)
Volume  4 (2011)
Volume  3 (2010)
Volume  2 (2009)
Volume  1 (2008)
Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Glass Ionomer-based Sealant Using ART Protocol and Resin-based Sealant on Primary Molars in Children

K Kiran, Bhargavi Vojjala, Priya Subramaniam

Keywords : Atraumatic restorative treatment sealant, Glass ionomer sealant, Pit and fissure sealants, Primary molars, Resin-based sealant

Citation Information : Kiran K, Vojjala B, Subramaniam P. Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Glass Ionomer-based Sealant Using ART Protocol and Resin-based Sealant on Primary Molars in Children. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15 (6):724-728.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2450

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-02-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The present in vivo study aims to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and survival rate of resin-based composite sealant (Clinpro Sealant, 3M ESPE, Irvine, California, United States of America) with high viscosity glass ionomer (GI) (Equia Forte, GC India, Patancheru, Telangana, India) using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealant protocol in primary molars. Materials and methods: The design of the study was a clinical, prospective split-mouth study. A total of 100 contralateral primary molars were selected and divided into two groups. In group I, children received Equia Forte, and in group II, children received Clinpro Sealant. The follow-up examinations were performed in the 1st and 6th months. Simonsen's Criteria were used to check for retention. International Caries Assessment and Detection System II (ICDAS II) criteria were used to check for dental caries. The data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: At 6 months, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups with regard to retention and caries preventive effect. Conclusions: High-viscosity GI sealants can be applied using the ART protocol and provide an alternative to resin-based sealants. Clinical significance: There is a limited number of studies on the performance of ART sealants in primary molars. Thus, the clinical efficacy and survival rate of resin-based composite sealant (Clinpro Sealant, 3M ESPE, Irvine, California, United States of America) with high viscosity GI (Equia Forte, GC India, Patancheru, Telangana, India) using ART sealant protocol in primary molars were evaluated. The research concluded that high-viscosity GI sealants using ART protocol are effective sealants in primary molars.

PDF Share
  1. Beiruti N, Frencken JE, Van't Hof MA, et al. Caries-preventive effect of a one-time application of composite resin and glass ionomer sealants after 5 years. Caries Res 2006;40(1):52–59. DOI: 10.1159/000088907
  2. Locker D, Jokovic A, Kay EJ. Prevention. Part 8. The use of pit and fissure sealants in preventing caries in the permanent dentition of children. Br Dent J 2003;195(7):375–378. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810556
  3. 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
  4. Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD, et al. Three-year survival of one-surface ART restorations and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe. Caries Res 1998;32(2):119–126. DOI: 10.1159/000016441
  5. Holmgren CJ, Lo EC, Hu D, et al. ART restorations and sealants placed in Chinese school children–results after three years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2000;28(4):314–320. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.280410.x
  6. Nagaraja UP, Kishore G. Glass ionomer cement – the different generations. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2005;18(2):158–165.
  7. 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
  8. Cabral RN, Faber J, Otero SA, et al. Retention rates and caries-preventive effects of two different sealant materials: a randomised clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22(9):3171–3177. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2416-z
  9. Joshi S, Sandhu M, Sogi HPS, et al. Split-mouth randomised clinical trial on the efficacy of GIC sealant on occlusal surfaces of primary second molar. Oral Health Prev Dent 2019;17(1):17–24. DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a41979
  10. 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
  11. Braham RL, Morris ME. Textbook of Pediatric Dentistry. 2nd edition. Chicago. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 1985.
  12. Frencken W. Clinical and SEM assessment of ART high-viscosity glass-ionomer sealants after 8-13 years in 4 teeth. J Dent 2010;38(1):59–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.09.004
  13. 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.jdent.2009.09.004
  14. Ripa LW. Sealants revisted: an update of the effectiveness of pit and-fissure sealants. Caries Res 1993;27(suppl 1):77–82. DOI: 10.1159/000261608
  15. Carvalho JC. Caries process on occlusal surfaces: evolving evidence and understanding. Caries Res 2014;48(4):339–346. DOI: 10.1159/000356307
  16. US Department of Health and Human Services. Oral Health in America: a Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research 2000.
  17. Mertz-Fairhurst EJ, Fairhurst CW, Williams JE, et al. A comparative clinical study of two pit and fissure sealants: six-year results in Augusta, Ga. J Am Dent Assoc 1982;105(2):237–239. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1982.0076
  18. Moshaverinia M, Navas A, Jahedmanesh N, et al. Comparative evaluation of the physical properties of a reinforced glass ionomer dental restorative material. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(2):154–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.012
  19. Waggoner WF, Siegal M. Pit and fissure sealant application: updating the technique. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127(3):351–361. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0205
  20. Ripa LW, Cole WW. Occlusal sealing and caries prevention: results 12 months after a single application of adhesive resin. J Dent Res 1970;49(1):171–173. DOI: 10.1177/00220345700490011301
  21. Eidelman E, Fuks AB, Chosack A. The retention of fissure sealants: rubber dam or cotton rolls in a private practice. ASDC J Dent Child 1983;50(4):259–261. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.13008
  22. Lygidakis NA, Oulis KI, Christodoulidis A. Evaluation of fissure sealants retention following four different isolation and surface preparation techniques: four years clinical trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1994;19(1):23–25.
  23. Barja-Fidalgo F, Maroun S, de Oliveira BH. Effectiveness of a glass ionomer cement used as a pit and fissure sealant in recently erupted permanent first molars. J Dent Child 2009;76(1):34–40.
  24. Liu BY, Yue X, Chu CH, et al. Glass ionomer ART sealant and fluoride releasing resin sealant in fissure caries prevention-results from a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 2014;14(1):54–62. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-54
  25. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental caries. Lancet 2007;369(9555): 51–59. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60031-2
  26. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention–a systematic review. PLoS One 2013;8(10):e77103. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077103
  27. Messer LB, Calache H, Morgan MV. The retention of pit and fissure sealants placed in primary school children by Dental Health Services, Victoria. Aust Dent J 1997;42(4):233–239. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1997.tb00127.x
  28. Taifour D, Frencken JE, Van't Hof MA, et al. Effects of glass ionomer sealants in newly erupted first molars after 5 years: a pilot study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003;31(4):314–319. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2003.00039.x
  29. Poulsen S, Laurberg L, Vaeth M, et al. A field trial of resin-based and glass–ionomer fissure sealants: clinical and radiographic assessment of caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2006;34(1):36–40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2006.00248.x
  30. Boksman L, Gratton DR, McCutcheon E, et al. Clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement as a fissure sealant. Quintessence Int 1987;18(10):707–709.
  31. Ulusu TE, Odabaş ME, Tüzüner TA, et al. The success rates of a glass ionomer cement and a resin-based fissure sealant placed by fifth-year undergraduate dental students. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2012;13(2):94–97. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262852
  32. Salar DV, Garcia-Godoy F, Flaitz CM, et al. Potential inhibition of demineralization in vitro by fluoride-releasing sealants. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(4):502–506. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0203
  33. Seixas GF, Guiraldo SB, Lemos LV, et al. Clinpro™ XT sealant adhesion to the occlusal surface of primary molars: longitudinal evaluation. J Health Sci 2018;20(2):112–118. DOI: 10.17921/2447-8938.2018v20n2p112-118
  34. Hong M, Vuong C, Herzog K, et al. Sealed primary molars are less likely to develop caries. J Am Dent Assoc 2019;150(8):641–648. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2019.04.011
  35. Chen X, Du M, Fan M, et al. Effectiveness of two new types of sealants: retention after 2 years. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16(5):1443–1450. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0633-9
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.