Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants bonded with different adhesive systems: a prospective randomized controlled trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate and compare the clinical retention of a resin-based fissure sealant placed with an intermediate layer of etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etch (SE) adhesives.

Materials and methods

Two hundred twenty-eight sealants were placed in 57 children with previously unsealed, caries-free permanent first molars, employing a split-mouth design. The teeth were randomized into four groups (n = 57 teeth/groups) according to the adhesive system placed under the tested sealant (Delton FS+; Dentsply). Group 1 (control): no bonding agent (conventional acid-etch sealant); group 2: prior enamel etch + ER adhesive (XP Bond; Dentsply); group 3: SE adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond; Kuraray) without prior etching; and group 4: prior enamel etch + SE adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). Clinical assessments were performed according to modified USPHS criteria at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The data were analyzed statistically using Fisher’s Exact test, the Kaplan-Meier analysis, and the Log-rank test.

Results

At 24 months, sealants bonded with XP Bond and Clearfil SE Bond with prior enamel etching showed similar retention rates (p > 0.05), and these rates were significantly better than the rates of the conventional sealant and Clearfil-SE groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the retention rates of the latter two groups (p > 0.05). The cumulative survival rates on palatal/buccal surfaces showed similar outcomes as with occlusal surfaces: XP Bond (94%), Clearfil SE Bond + acid-etch (94%), conventional sealant (52%), and Clearfil SE Bond only (37%).

Conclusions

Application of the tested ER adhesive and the SE adhesive with enamel etching significantly improved the clinical retention of Delton-FS over the 24-month period.

Clinical relevance

The use of a resin-based fissure sealant placed with ER or SE adhesive with prior acid-etching yielded better retention than the conventional sealant over the 24-month period.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Carvalho JC, Thylstrup A, Ekstrand KR (1992) Results of 3 years of non-operative occlusal caries treatment of erupting permanent first molars. Community Dent Oral 20:187–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hebling J, Feigal RJ (2000) Use of one-bottle adhesive as an intermediate bonding layer to reduce sealant microleakage on saliva-contaminated enamel. Am J Dent 13:187–191

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pollard MA, Duggal MS, Fayle SA, Toumba KJ, Curzon MEJ (1998) Caries preventive strategies. ILSI Europe, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  4. Feigal RJ (2002) The use of pit and fissure sealants. Pediatr Dent 24:415–422

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Forss H, Walsh T, Hiiri A, Nordblad A, Makela M, Worthington HV (2013) Sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth. Cochrane Db Syst Rev 3:CD001830

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jensen OE, Handelman SL (1980) Effect of an autopolymerizing sealant on viability of microflora in occlusal dental caries. Scand J Dent Res 88:382–388

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kuhnisch J, Mansmann U, Heinrich-Weltzien R, Hickel R (2012) Longevity of materials for pit and fissure sealing—results from a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 28:298–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Messer LB, Calache H, Morgan MV (1997) The retention of pit and fissure sealants placed in primary school children by Dental Health Services, Victoria. Aust Dent J 42:233–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hitt JC, Feigal RJ (1992) Use of a bonding agent to reduce sealant sensitivity to moisture contamination: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent 14:41–46

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Symons AL, Chu CY, Meyers IA (1996) The effect of fissure morphology and pretreatment of the enamel surface on penetration and adhesion of fissure sealants. J Oral Rehabil 23:791–798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Simonsen RJ (1987) Retention and effectiveness of a single application of white sealant after 10 years. J Am Dent Assoc 115:31–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hormati AA, Fuller JL, Denehy GE (1980) Effects of contamination and mechanical disturbance on the quality of acid-etched enamel. J Am Dent Assoc 100:34–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Silverstone LM, Hicks MJ, Featherstone MJ (1985) Oral fluid contamination of etched enamel surfaces: an SEM study. J Am Dent Assoc 110:329–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cehreli ZC, Gungor HC (2008) Quantitative microleakage evaluation of fissure sealants applied with or without a bonding agent: results after four-year water storage in vitro. J Adhes Dent 10:379–384

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Feigal RJ, Musherure P, Gillespie B, Levy-Polack M, Quelhas I, Hebling J (2000) Improved sealant retention with bonding agents: a clinical study of two-bottle and single-bottle systems. J Dent Res 79:1850–1856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Feigal RJ, Quelhas I (2003) Clinical trial of a self-etching adhesive for sealant application: success at 24 months with Prompt L-Pop. Am J Dent 16:249–251

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003)Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28:215–235

  18. Tay FR, Pashley DH, King NM, Carvalho RM, Tsai J, Lai SC, Marquezini L Jr (2004) Aggressiveness of self-etch adhesives on unground enamel. Oper Dent 29:309–316

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Perdigao J, Geraldeli S (2003) Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent: official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry [et al.] 15:32–41 discussion 42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Karaman E, Yazici AR, Tuncer D, Firat E, Unluer S, Baseren M (2013) A 48-month clinical evaluation of fissure sealants placed with different adhesive systems. Oper Dent 38:369–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pinar A, Sepet E, Aren G, Bolukbasi N, Ulukapi H, Turan N (2005) Clinical performance of sealants with and without a bonding agent. Quintessence Int 36:355–360

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sakkas C, Khomenko L, Trachuk I (2013) A comparative study of clinical effectiveness of fissure sealing with and without bonding systems: 3-year results. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 14:73–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cvar J, Ryge G (1971) Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials US DHEW document, US public health service 790244, printing office, San Francisco, pp 1-42. And reprinted as Cvar J, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials Clin Oral Investig 2005 Dec;9(4):215–232).

  24. Feigal RJ (1998) Sealants and preventive restorations: review of effectiveness and clinical changes for improvement. Pediatr Dent 20:85–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Beauchamp J, Caufield PW, Crall JJ, Donly K, Feigal R, Gooch B et al (2008) Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants. JADA 139:257–268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McCafferty J, O'Connell AC (2016) A randomised clinical trial on the use of intermediate bonding on the retention of fissure sealants in children. Int J Paediatr Dent 26:110–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mascarenhas AK, Nazar H, Al-Mutawaa S, Soparkar P (2008) Effectiveness of primer and bond in sealant retention and caries prevention. Pediatr Dent 30:25–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Torres CP, Balbo P, Gomes-Silva JM, Ramos RP, Palma-Dibb RG, Borsatto MC (2005) Effect of individual or simultaneous curing on sealant bond strength. J Dent Child (Chic) 72:31–35

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J (1999) Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 27:523–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hobson RS, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Booth TA (2002) Acid-etch patterns on the buccal surface of human permanent teeth. Arch Oral Biol 47:407–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2006) Bond strength of a mild self-etch adhesive with and without prior acid-etching. J Dent 34:77–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Van Meerbeek B, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Peumans M (2005) A randomized controlled study evaluating the effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective phosphoric-acid etching of enamel. Dent Mater 21:375–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hassall DC, Mellor AC (2001) The sealant restoration: indications, success and clinical technique. Brit Dent J 191:358–362

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hu X, Fan M, Rong W, Lo EC, Bronkhorst E, Frencken JE (2014) Sealant retention is better assessed through colour photographs than through the replica and the visual examination methods. Eur J Oral Sci 122:279–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Hacettepe University, 06100, Sihhiye/Ankara, Turkey

    Gizem Erbas Unverdi, Stephan Atilla Atac & Zafer Cavit Cehreli

Authors
  1. Gizem Erbas Unverdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephan Atilla Atac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zafer Cavit Cehreli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gizem Erbas Unverdi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This work was supported by the Hacettepe University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit in Ankara, Turkey.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Erbas Unverdi, G., Atac, S.A. & Cehreli, Z.C. Effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants bonded with different adhesive systems: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Invest 21, 2235–2243 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-2016-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-2016-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation