Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 711–716 | Cite as

Efficacy of a moisture-tolerant material for fissure sealing: a prospective randomised clinical trial

Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

Fissure sealings offer nearly complete protection against fissure caries, provided that they are adequately applied, for composite-based sealants with sufficient moisture control. This is not always attainable, particularly in children with low compliance. To counter this problem, a moisture-tolerant sealant has been developed. The present randomised clinical trial compared such a moisture-tolerant material (Embrace) with a conventional sealant (Helioseal).

Material and methods

In 55 participants (mean age, 10 ± 3 years), corresponding molar pairs were sealed with either Embrace or Helioseal. Retention, quality of sealing, and caries were clinically examined, both tactilely and visually, immediately and after 1 year.

Results

After 1 year, 93 % of Helioseal sealings were complete, whereas 60 % of Embrace sealings showed partial and 13 % complete loss. The surface quality of Embrace was significantly worse than that of Helioseal. After the use of Embrace, the sealant margin was noticeable as a slight (distinct) step in 36 % (15 %). The visual (tactile) examination showed a rough surface in 78 % (33 %) in the case of Embrace. The Helioseal surfaces were shiny (smooth) in all cases (all differences between Helioseal and Embrace, p ≤ 0.001). Caries was found only after the use of Embrace (4 %, n.s. compared to Helioseal).

Conclusion

The moisture-tolerant material Embrace was distinctly inferior to Helioseal because Embrace showed weaknesses in retention and surface quality.

Clinical relevance

Even if a moisture-tolerant sealant would be desirable in particular for children with low compliance, the tested material does not represent an alternative to the standard preparation.

Keywords

Fissure sealing Clinical trial Prophylaxis Retention 

References

  1. 1.
    Dye BA, Tan S, Smith V, Lewis BG, Barker LK, Thornton-Evans G et al (2007) Trends in oral health status: United States, 1988–1994 and 1999–2004. Vital Health Stat 11:1–92Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Hiiri A, Nordblad A, Makela M, Worthington HV (2008) Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borges BC, Campos GB, da Silveira AD, de Lima KC, Pinheiro IV (2010) Efficacy of a pit and fissure sealant in arresting dentin non-cavitated caries: a 1-year follow-up, randomized, single-blind, controlled clinical trial. Am J Dent 23:311–316PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ganss C, Klimek J, Gleim A (1999) One year clinical evaluation of the retention and quality of two fluoride releasing sealants. Clin Oral Invest 3:188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barroso JM, Torres CP, Lessa FC, Pecora JD, Palma-Dibb RG, Borsatto MC (2005) Shear bond strength of pit-and-fissure sealants to saliva-contaminated and noncontaminated enamel. J Dent Child (Chic) 72:95–99Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rirattanapong P, Vongsavan K, Surarit R (2011) Shear bond strength of some sealants under saliva contamination. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 42:463–467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thomson JL, Main C, Gillespie FC, Stephen KW (1981) The effect of salivary contamination on fissure sealant–enamel bond strength. J Oral Rehabil 8:11–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoffman I (2009) A moisture tolerant, resin-based pit and fissure sealant. Dental Tribune 2009:17A–18AGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. J Am Dent Assoc 139:257–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simonsen RJ (2002) Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 24:393–414PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turkmen C, Durkan M, Cimilli H, Oksuz M (2011) Tensile bond strength of indirect composites luted with three new self-adhesive resin cements to dentin. J Appl Oral Sci 19(4):363–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cardoso MV, de Almeida NA, Mine A, Coutinho E, Van LK, De MJ et al (2011) Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J 56(Suppl 1):31–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferracane JL (2006) Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 22:211–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Conservative and Preventive DentistryDental Clinic of the Justus Liebig UniversityGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations