Comparative evaluation of a fissure sealant and a flowable composite: A 36-month split-mouth, randomized clinical study

Abstract

ObjectivesThe purpose of the present clinical evaluation was to investigate the effect of a fissure sealant and a flowable composite at fissures of permanent molars in terms of retention and caries-incidence rates over a 36-month period. MethodsThirty-four patients, ages varied from 16 to 22 years, diagnosed with at least 2 non-cavitated pit-and-fissure caries in the first and second molars were involved in the study. A total of 220 sealants, were placed in 117 upper molars and 103 lower molars. Teeth were sealed with either a flowable resin composite (Tetric Evo Flow) or a sealant material (Helioseal F)(n = 110). Each restoration was evaluated in terms of retention and caries incidence at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months according to their location as well. Data were analyzed using Mann–Whitney U, Friedman and 1-way ANOVA tests at p < 0.05. ResultsTetric Evo Flow showed total retention with 95.5%, 93.8%, 88.5% and 80.2% at 6, 12, 24 and 36-month follow-ups respectively, while Helioseal F had retention rates of 95.5%, 94.8%, 85.4% and 80.2% respectively. After 36-months, there were 6 subjects totally lost in Helioseal F group, whereas 7 of the Tetric Evo Flow sunjects were totally lost. Caries development was firstly detected at 12-month evaluation for both of the materials however, no significant differences were observed among materials in retention rates or caries incidence after 36-month follow-ups (p > 0.05). SignificanceUsing the flowable composite found as effective as the fissure sealant after 36-months regarding retention and caries incidence rates.