Retention of pit and fissure sealants versus flowable composites in permanent teeth: A systematic review

Introduction: Sealants have proved to be one of the easiest methods of caries prevention in young permanent teeth, the placement of which is very technique sensitive. The non-invasive method of pretreating the enamel surface by deproteinising it with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) for 60 seconds prior to etching has proven to be a promising method for improving retention and reducing microleakage of sealant. Aim: To evaluate the effect of enamel pre-etching with sodium hypochlorite deproteinisation and bonding agent on retention and microleakage of pit and fissure sealants. Materials and Methods: This in-vitro experimental study was conducted in Department of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry at Annoor Dental College, Muvattupuzha, Kerala and Nanotechnology Lab at Amrita Institute of Medical Science. Freshly extracted Intact permanent maxillary and mandibular 20 third molars and 20 premolars mounted on acrylic blocks were divided into 4 groups containing 5 teeth in each group. Molars and premolar were taken for assessing the rate of retention and microleakage, respectively. Teeth in Group 1 were subjected to acid etching only, Group 2 were deproteinised prior to acid etching, Group 3 were subjected to acid etching followed by bonding and Group 4 were subjected to deproteinisation, etching and bonding. Then, all teeth were sealed with pit and fissure sealant and underwent thermocycling in artificial saliva bath for evaluation of sealant retention and microleakage. After thermocycling, retention was assessed on molar by one pre-calibrated blinded examiner by passing a 0.5 mm diameter probe along the margins of the sealant placed to verify integrity, failure, or loss of continuity based on Simonsen’s criteria (1989). To assess microleakage, premolar samples were immersed in rhodamine B, sectioned longitudinally, and examined under a stereomicroscope for assessment of microleakage. Collected data were statistically analysed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney u test. Results: The results showed 100% retention for teeth in Group 2a, Group 3a, Group 4a, while partial sealant loss was present in 3 teeth from Group 1a. The differences between the groups for retention was statistically significant (p=0.014). In the case of microleakage, Group 3b showed more microleakage and group 4b showed least microleakage and the difference between them was statistically significant (p=0.009). Conclusion: Deproteinisation and use of bonding agent increases retention of the pit and fissure sealants. However, deproteinisation is a more effective method to control microleakage when compared to bonding agent. Thus, it can be considered as an effective method for pretreating enamel surface before sealant placement.

Download Full-text

In Vitro Microleakage Comparison of Flowable Nanocomposites and Conventional Materials Used in Pit and Fissure Sealant Therapy

Frontiers in Dentistry ◽

10.18502/fid.v16i1.1105 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Sara Arastoo ◽

Azam Behbudi ◽

Vahid Rakhshan

Keyword(s):

Composite Resin ◽

Third Molar ◽

Pediatric Dentistry ◽

Fissure Sealants ◽

Fissure Sealant ◽

Pit And Fissure Sealants ◽

Flowable Composite ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Flowable Composites ◽

Unfilled Resin

Objectives: Pit and fissure sealants are recognized as an effective preventive approach in pediatric dentistry. Composite resin is the most commonly used sealant material. Adding nanoparticles to composite resin could result in production of flowable composite with higher mechanical properties and better flowability than previous sealants. This study aimed to compare the microleakage of a flowable nanocomposite and materials conventionally used as pit and fissure sealants. Materials and Methods: A total of 185 extracted mandibular third molar teeth were selected and randomly divided into 5 groups (n=36): flowable nanocomposite, flowable composite, filled sealants, nano-filled sealants, and unfilled sealants. Five teeth were reserved for examination under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The samples were thermocycled (5-55°C, 1-minute dwell time) for 1000 cycles and immersed in 0.2% fuchsine solution for 24 hours. Teeth were sectioned buccolingually. Microleakage was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by means of dye penetration and SEM. Data were analyzed using chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis, and Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Qualitative microleakage assessment showed that flowable composite and nanofilled flowable composite had almost no microleakage (P<0.001). Regarding quantitative scores, the nanofilled flowable composite and unfilled fissure sealant showed the lowest and the highest rate of microleakage, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the two flowable composites (P=0.317). Filled resin-based sealant had significantly lower microleakage than unfilled resin-based sealant (P<0.001). Conclusion: Use of flowable and nanofilled flowable composites (but not unfilled resin-based fissure sealant) is recommended for sealing of pits and fissures of molars.

Download Full-text

Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents

10.1002/14651858.cd001830.pub3 ◽

2008 ◽

Cited By ~ 58

Author(s):

Anneli Ahovuo-Saloranta ◽

Anne Hiiri ◽

Anne Nordblad ◽

Marjukka Mäkelä ◽

Helen V Worthington

Keyword(s):

Children And Adolescents ◽

Permanent Teeth ◽

Fissure Sealants ◽

Dental Decay ◽

Pit And Fissure Sealants

Download Full-text

Influence of Isolation Methods on Retention of Pit and Fissure Sealants in Young Permanent Teeth based on Simonsen’s Criteria: A Randomised Clinical Trial

JOURNAL FOR CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH ◽

10.7860/jcdr/2021/44929.14734 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Madhuri Bandi ◽

Sreekanth Kumar Mallineni ◽

Sivakumar Nuvvula

Keyword(s):

Permanent Teeth ◽

Treatment Modalities ◽

Fissure Sealants ◽

Pit And Fissure Sealants ◽

Rubber Dam ◽

Marginal Integrity ◽

Group I ◽

Isolation Methods ◽

Group Ii ◽

Cotton Roll

Introduction: Pit and Fissure Sealants (PFS) are chemically-active liquid materials that are introduced into the occlusal surface of caries-susceptible teeth. These form a micro mechanically bonded, protective layer preventing access to caries-producing bacteria, from rest of the oral environment. Aim: To evaluate the retention of PFS placed on young permanent teeth using two isolation methods. Materials and Methods: This clinical study was carried out in the Department of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, at Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. One hundred Permanent First Molars (PFM) from 25 healthy, cooperative children in the age group of 6-9 years were assigned by block randomisation into two groups (isolation type); each group containing the upper and lower PFMs of the right and left side receiving two different treatment modalities (split-mouth design). In Group I (n=50 teeth), the teeth received sealant with rubber dam isolation, and in Group II (n=50 teeth), with cotton roll isolation. The sealant was applied to all the PFMs as indicated. All the teeth were evaluated using Simonsen’s criteria at regular intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months. The data collected were subjected to statistical analysis using the SPSS statistical package (version 17) and statistical significance was set at 0.05. The difference in the retention of PFS with the two isolation methods was analysed using the Chi-square test. Results: After 12 months, the marginal integrity rate for sealants placed with a rubber dam and cotton roll isolation were 75% and 64%, respectively. The results were better in Group I than in Group II, although there were no statistically significant differences with respect to marginal integrity, discolouration, and anatomical failure. Conclusion: Retention of PFS in young permanent teeth was better with rubber dam than cotton rolls for isolation, though the results were not statistically significant.

Download Full-text

Resin-based sealants longevity: a clinical evaluation

ARCHIVES OF HEALTH INVESTIGATION ◽

10.21270/archi.v9i3.4684 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Heitor Ceolin Araujo ◽

Isabela Copetti Faria ◽

Brenda Zanfolin Torquato ◽

Renan Ceolin Araujo ◽

Rosana Leal do Prado ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Dental Caries ◽

Clinical Evaluation ◽

Permanent Teeth ◽

Caries Experience ◽

Fissure Sealants ◽

Fissure Sealant ◽

Pit And Fissure Sealants ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Permanent Molars ◽

Pit And Fissure Sealant

Introdution: The occlusal surface of the molars are more susceptible to dental caries because of their anatomy, so in some cases, the sealants are indicated. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, retention, presence of caries and marginal discoloration of resinous sealants (Fluoroshield and Prevent) in first permanent molars. Methods: Ninety - one children aged 7 to 9 years were selected from a municipal institution Regente Feijó, SP, Brazil, for the application of resinous sealants to first permanent lower first molars. The application of Fluoroshield and Prevent resin sealants was performed according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The evaluation was performed after 6 and 12 months by double-blind examiners and followed the criteria: alpha (total sealant, absence of caries and absence of pigmentation) charlie (partial sealing, superficial caries and light pigmentation) charlie complete sealing, presence of cavitation and pigmentation) after 12 months of application by two previously calibrated examiners. Results: Using Fischer's exact test, no significant difference (p 0.05) was observed between the resin-based sealant groups. In the evaluated criteria, both sealants after three years were similar, and may therefore be suitable materials for sealing grooves and fissures in permanent molars.Descriptors: Pit and Fissure Sealants; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Oral Health.ReferencesPalma-Dibb RG, Chinelatti MA, Souza-Zaroni WC. Diagnóstico de lesões de cárie. In: Assed S. Odontopediatria: bases científicas para a prática clínica. São Paulo: Artes Médicas; 2005.Sheiham A, James WP. Diet and Dental Caries: The Pivotal Role of Free Sugars Reemphasized. J Dent Res. 2015;94(10):1341-47.Faleiros Chioca S, Urzúa Araya L, Rodríguez Martínez G, Cabello Ibacache R. Uso de sellantes de fosas y fisuras para La prevención de caries em población infanto-juvenil: Revisión metodológica de ensayos clínicos. Rev Clin Periodoncia Implantol Rehabil Oral. 2013;6(1):14-9.Liu BY, Lo EC, Chu CH, Lin HC. Randomized Trial on Fluorides and Sealants for Fissure Caries Prevention. J Dent Res 2012;91(8):753-58Condò R, Cioffi A, Riccio A, Totino M, Condò SG, Cerroni L. Sealants in dentistry: a systematic review of the literature. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2014;6(3):67-74. Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Forss H, Walsh T, Hiiri A, Nordblad A, Mäkelä M et al. Sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(3):CD001830Moreira KMS,Kantovitz KR,Aguiar JPD, Borges AFS, Pascon FM, Puppin-Rontani RM. Impact of the intermediary layer on sealant retention: a randomized 24-month clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(5):1435-43.Griffin SO, Gray SK, Malvitz DM, Gooch BF. Caries Risk in Formerly Sealed Teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140(4):415-23.Splieth CH, Ekstrand KR, Alkilzy M, Clarkson J, Meyer-Lueckel H, Martignon S et al. Sealants in dentistry: outcomes of the ORCA Saturday Afternoon Symposium 2007. Caries Res. 2010;44(1):3-13Sundfeld RH, Briso ALF, Mauro SJ, de Alexandre RS, Sundfeld Neto D, Oliveira FG et al. Twenty years experience with pit and fissure sealants. Int J Clin Dent. 2010;2(4):1-12.Baldini V, Tagliaferro EPS, Ambrosano GMB, Meneghim MC, Pereira AC. Use of occlusal sealant in a community program and caries incidence in high- and low-risk children. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010;19(4):396-402.Provenzano MGA, Rios D, Fracasso MLC, Marchesi A, Honório HM. Clinical Evaluation of a Resin-Modifi ed Glass Ionomer Cement (Vitremer®) Used as Pit-And-Fissure Sealant in Primary Molars. Pesq Bras Odontoped Clin Integr.2010;10(2):233-40.Saito CM, Lima EP, Mello D, Mello FAS. Selante resinoso: tratamento preventivo e minimamente invasivo. Rev Gest Saúde. 2014;11:10-17.Zenkner JE, Alves LS, de Oliveira RS, Bica RH, Wagner MB, Maltz M. Influence of eruption stage and biofilm accumulation on occlusal caries in permanent molars: a generalized estimating equations logistic approach. Caries Res. 2013;47(3):177-82.Delmondes FS, Imparato JCP. Selamento de primeiros molares permanentes em erupção com cimento de ionômero de vidro. J Bras Odontopediatr. Odontol Bebê. 2003;6(33):373-78.Heyduck C, Meller C, Schwahn C, Spliet CH. Effectiveness of Sealants in Adolescents with High and Low Caries Experience. Caries Res. 2006;40(5):375-81.Tagliaferro EPS, Ambrosano GMB, Meneghim MC, Pereira AC. Risk indicators and risk predictors of dental caries in schoolchildren. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008;16(6):408-13.Silva RCSP, Araujo MAM, Rego MA. Avaliação clinica de selantes de fossulas e fissuras: efeitos de materiais e tempo de analise. Rev Odontol UNESP. 1996;25(2):237-45.Beraldo DZ, Pereira KFS, Zafalon EJ, Yoshinari FMS.Análise comparativa entre selante resinoso e selante ionomérico por microscópio eletrônico de varredura. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2015;44(4):239-43.Araújo IT, Cunha MMF, Vasconcelos MG, Vasconcelos, RG. Selantes: uma técnica eficaz na prevenção da cárie. Com ciênc saúde. 2013;24(3):259-66.Moura SK, Lemos LVFM, Myszkovisk S, Provenzano MGA, Balducci I, Myaki SI. Bonding durability of dental sealants to deciduous and permanent teeth. Braz J Oral Sci. 2014; 13(3):198-202.Sundfeld RH, Mauro SJ, Briso ALF, Sundfeld MLMM. Clinical/photographic evaluation of a single application of two sealants after eleven years. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2004;45(2):67-75.Folke BD, Walton JL, Feigal RJ. Occlusal Sealant Success Over Ten Years in a Private Practice: Comparing Longevity of Sealants Placed by Dentists, Hygienists, and Assistants. Pediatr Dent. 2004;26(5):426-32.Sundfeld RH, Croll Theodore P, José MS, Briso ALF, Sversut AR, Sundefeld MLMM. Longitudinal photographic observation of the occurrence of bubbles in pit and fissure sealants. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006;14(1):27-32.Arhakis A, Damianaki S, Toumba KJ. Pit and fissure sealants: types, effectiveness, retention, and fluoride release: a literature review. Balkan J Stomatol. 2007;11(3):151-62.Garbin CAS, Garbin AJI, Santos KT, Pizzato E, Moroso TT. Retention of a pit-and-fissure sealant: comparison of three types of isolation. Pesq Bras Odontoped Clin Integr. 2008;8(2):175-78.Kühnisch J, Mansmannb U, Roswitha HW, Hickel R. Longevity of materials for pit and fissure sealing - results from a meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2012;28(3):298-303.

Download Full-text