Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
35]||ClickheretodownloadfreeAndroidapplicationforthisjournal
Abstract
Sealing occlusal pits and fissures with resin-based sealants is a proven method of preventing occlusal caries. Retention of the
sealant is very essential for its efficiency. This study evaluated the retention of glass ionomer used as a fissure sealant when
compared to a self-cure resin-based sealant.
One hundred and seven children between the ages of 69 years, with all four newly erupted permanent first molars were selected.
Two permanent first molars on one side of the mouth were sealed with Delton, a resin-based sealant, and the contralateral two
permanent first molars were sealed with Fuji VII glass ionomer cement. Evaluation of sealant retention was performed at regular
intervals over 12 months, using Simonsens criteria. At the end of the study period, the retention of the resin sealant was seen
to be superior to that of the glass ionomer sealant.
Keywords: Glass ionomer cement, pit and fissure, resin, sealant
114
[Downloadedfromhttp://www.jisppd.comonSunday,February01,2015,IP:180.246.55.35]||ClickheretodownloadfreeAndroidapplicationforthisjournal
Retention of sealants
RESEN SEALANT
Months
Months
Results
Comparison of retention of the two sealants [Table 1 and
Figure 1]
At the third month of evaluation, 58% of resin sealant was
completely retained, as compared to only 27.2% of glass
ionomer sealant. On 77 teeth (37.4%), resin sealant was
partially retained and on 139 teeth (67.5%) glass ionomer
sealant was partially retained. The difference in the degree
[Downloadedfromhttp://www.jisppd.comonSunday,February01,2015,IP:180.246.55.35]||ClickheretodownloadfreeAndroidapplicationforthisjournal
Retention of sealants
Table 1: Retention of resin sealant and glass ionomer sealant
Evaluation period
3rd month
6th month
9th month
12th month
Retention
Complete
Partial
Missing
Complete
Partial
Missing
Complete
Partial
Missing
Complete
Partial
Missing
Resin sealant
(n=206)
Number of teeth
120
77
9
79
104
23
43
102
61
30
81
95
Percentage
58.3
37.4
4.4
38.3
50.5
11.2
20.9
49.5
29.6
14.6
39.3
46.1
Number of teeth
56
139
11
27
101
78
6
76
124
2
57
147
Percentage
27.2
67.5
5.3
13.1
49
37.9
2.9
36.9
60.2
0.9
27.7
71.4
P value
<0.001**
<0.001**
0.647
<0.001**
0.768
<0.001**
<0.001**
0.010*
<0.001**
<0.001**
0.012*
<0.001**
Discussion
Dental sealants have been proved to be highly effective in
the prevention of pit and fissure caries. The caries-preventive
property of sealants is based on the establishment of a seal
which prevents nutrients from reaching the microflora in the
fissure. The preventive effects of the sealant are maintained
only as long as it remains completely intact and bonded in
place.[10] Adequate retention of sealant requires the sealed
tooth to have a maximum surface area with deep, irregular
pits and fissures, and to be clean and dry at the time of the
procedure.[11]
[Downloadedfromhttp://www.jisppd.comonSunday,February01,2015,IP:180.246.55.35]||ClickheretodownloadfreeAndroidapplicationforthisjournal
Retention of sealants
Table 2: Comparison of sealant retention on upper and lower teeth
Evaluation period
Retention
3rd month
Complete
Partial
Missing
Complete
Partial
Missing
Complete
Partial
Missing
Complete
Partial
Missing
6th month
9th month
12th month
Resin sealant
P value
Upper teeth
(n=103)
Lower teeth
(n=103)
59 (57.28)
39 (37.86)
5 (4.85)
32 (31.07)
60 (58.25)
11 (10.67)
14 (13.59)
56 (54.36)
33(32.04)
8 (7.76)
44 (42.72)
51 (49.51)
61(59.22)
38 (36.89)
4(3.88)
47 (45.63)
44 (42.72)
12 (11.65)
29 (28.15)
46 (44.66)
28 (27.18)
22 (21.36)
37 (35.92)
44 (42.71)
0.778
0.885
0.999
0.032*
0.026*
0.825
0.010*
0.163
0.445
0.006*
0.318
0.328
Lower teeth
(n=103)
26 (25.24)
70 (67.96)
7 (6.79)
9 (8.74)
44 (42.72)
50 (48.54)
31 (30.09)
72 (69.90)
25 (24.27)
78 (75.73)
30 (29.13)
69 (66.99)
4 (3.88)
18 (17.47)
57 (55.33)
28 (27.18)
6 (5.83)
45 (43.69)
52 (50.49)
2 (1.94)
32 (31.07)
69 (66.99)
P value
0.531
0.882
0.353
0.063
0.070
0.002*
0.029*
0.043*
0.004*
0.498
0.276
0.165
RESIN SEALANT
U=Upper tooth
L=Lower tooth
rd
th
th
th
rd
th
th
th
[Downloadedfromhttp://www.jisppd.comonSunday,February01,2015,IP:180.246.55.35]||ClickheretodownloadfreeAndroidapplicationforthisjournal
Retention of sealants
missing sealant, i.e., the resin sealant was missing from nearly
half the treated teeth. The highest rate of sealant loss was
seen at the sixth month, with only 38% of sealant completely
retained and 51% partially retained. This was in accordance
with Whitehurst and Soni, who found that the greatest
sealant loss occurred during the first 6 months. They also
reported only 18% of first and second molars were completely
sealed after 1 year.[3] Also, Stephen et al. reported that only
12 out of nearly 400 teeth remained completely sealed after
1 year in a study performed under field conditions.[3]
118
[Downloadedfromhttp://www.jisppd.comonSunday,February01,2015,IP:180.246.55.35]||ClickheretodownloadfreeAndroidapplicationforthisjournal
Retention of sealants
Conclusions
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
119
[Downloadedfromhttp://www.jisppd.comonSunday,February01,2015,IP:180.246.55.35]||ClickheretodownloadfreeAndroidapplicationforthisjournal
Retention of sealants
30. Poulsen S, Beiruti N, Sadat N. A comparison of retention and
the effect on caries of fissure sealing with a glass-ionomer and a
resin-based sealant. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:
298-301.
31. Feigal RJ. Sealants and preventive restorations: Review of
effectiveness and clinical changes for improvement. Pediatr Dent
1998;20:85-92.
32. Wilson AD, McLean JW. Glass-Ionomer Cement. Quintessence
Publishing Co; 1988.
33. Arrow P, Riordan PJ. Retention and caries preventive effects of
a GIC and a resin-based fissure sealant. Community Dent Oral
Epidemiol 1995;23:282-5.
34. Herle GP, Joseph T, Varma B, Jayanthi M. Comparative evaluation
of glass ionomer and resin based fissure sealant using noninvasive
and invasive techniques: A SEM and microleakage study. J Indian
Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2004;22:56-62.
2000;79:1850-6.
20. 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;42:233-9.
21. Shashikiran ND, Subbareddy VV, Deshpande A. A clinical
comparison of visible light activated unfilled, fluoride and nonfluoride containing and filled fluoride containing pit and fissure
sealants. J Cons Dent 2004;7:70-6.
22. Lygidakis NA, Oulis KI. A comparison of Fluoroshield with Delton
fissure sealant: Four year results. Pediatr Dent 1999;21:429-31.
23. Ripa LW. Sealants revisited: An update of the effectiveness of
pit-and-fissure sealants. Caries Res 1993;27:77-82.
24. Gwinnett AJ. Scientific rationale for sealant use and technical
aspects of application. J Dent Educ 1984;48:56-9.
25. Donnan MF, Ball IA. A double-blind clinical trial to determine the
importance of pumice prophylaxis on fissure sealant retention. Br
Dent J 1988;165:283-6.
26. Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature.
Pediatr Dent 2002;24:393-414.
27. Simonsen RJ. Glass ionomer as fissure sealant: A critical review.
J Public Health Dent 1996;56:146-9.
28. Mejre I, Mjr IA. Glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants:
A clinical study. Scand J Dent Res 1990;98:345-50.
29. Komatsu H, Shimokobe H, Kawakami S, Yoshimura M. Cariespreventive effect of glass ionomer sealant reapplication: Study
presents three-year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125:543-9.
120