Evaluation of Sealant Retention and Caries Prevention on Posterior Teeth of Children - A Comparative Study.

The present study compared the clinical performance of nanoparticulated resin modified glass ionomer and conventional glass ionomer pit and fissure sealant on permanent molars. Fifty patient having bilateral occlusal grooves in pits and fissures of the occlusal surface were included for this study where 50 teeth were treated with nanopaticulated resin modified and the remaining 50 teeth were subjected to conventional glass ionomer sealants. The color match, retention and marginal adaptation were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months and statistical analysis was performed by Chi-square test to assess the difference between the two sealants; a values of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. The results showed that although there were no significant differences between two sealants at baseline and 3 months observation period but nanoparticulated resin modified glass ionomer sealants showed better clinical performance than that of conventional glass ionomer sealants at 12 months and the differences between two sealants were statistically significant (p<0.05). It can be concluded that naqnoparticulated resin modified glass ionomer sealant exhibited better color stability, more retention, and better marginal adaptation than those of conventional glass ionomer sealants at 12 months observation period.

Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents.

Background:The aim of this study is comparing the retention and caries preventive effect of the glass-ionomer fissure sealant and resin-based fissure sealant.Materials and Methods:A randomized-controlled split-mouth study was conducted to compare the retention and the caries preventive effect of light-cured resin-based sealant (3M ESPE) and glass ionomer sealant (Fuji VII). The sealants were applied to either the right or the left lower mandibular molars (7-9 yrs of age) in 120 school children, based on the randomization process. They were recalled for assessment of clinical retention at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months. The caries-preventive effect between the two materials was tested statistically by the McNemar's test for matched pairs, and the differences observed with regard to the retention of the materials was tested by Chi-square tests. The level of significance was set to be at P < 0.05.Results:At the end of 12th month, sealant retention is found to be higher in the resin-based sealant group compared to the glass ionomer group. In the glass ionomer sealants placed, 101 (91%) were caries-free and 10 (9%) had caries. In the resin-based sealant, 105 (94.60%) had sound teeth and 6 (5.4%) had dental caries (P = 0.34).Conclusion:The glass ionomer sealant was less retentive when compared to resin sealants. The caries incidence between the glass ionomer and resin-based sealants was not statistically significant.

Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth.

The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficacy of nanofilled and microfilled resin- modified glass ionomer as pits and fissure sealants in permanent molar teeth. Ninety six teeth having fissure at the occlusal surface were randomly divided into two groups: Group I: Treated by nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer sealant and Group II: Treated by microfilled resin- modified glass ionomer sealants. Clinical assessment was performed by modified Ryge´s criteria by means of retention, color match, marginal adaptation at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up visit. Chi-square test was used for testing differences between the two groups; a value of p&lt;0.05 was considered as statistically significant. The results revealed that at 12 months observation period, nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer sealant showed better retention, color stability and marginal adaptation than that of microfilled resin-modified glass ionomer sealants. Furthermore, the differences between two groups in respect to marginal adaptation and color match were statistically significant (p&lt;0.05). It can be concluded that nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer sealant could be a better alternative to microfilled resin- modified glass ionomer sealant.

Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents.

ABSTRACTBackground:Pit and fissure sealants are widely used as a preventive measure against dental caries, especially in high-risk populations. Various types of sealants, including resin-based, glass ionomer, and bioactive materials, have been introduced with differing levels of retention and caries prevention efficacy. This study evaluates and compares the effectiveness of different sealant materials in preventing occlusal caries in a community-based setting.Materials and Methods:A total of 400 school-aged children (6–12 years) were enrolled and randomly assigned to three groups based on the type of pit and fissure sealant used: Group A (resin-based sealant), Group B (glass ionomer sealant), and Group C (bioactive sealant). The sealants were applied following manufacturer instructions, and retention rates along with caries incidence were assessed at 6 and 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square tests and ANOVA to determine significant differences between groups.Results:At the 6-month follow-up, retention rates were highest in Group A (85%), followed by Group C (80%) and Group B (70%). At 12 months, retention declined to 75%, 72%, and 60% for Groups A, C, and B, respectively. Caries incidence after one year was lowest in Group A (7%), followed by Group C (9%) and Group B (15%), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). Resin-based and bioactive sealants demonstrated superior retention and caries prevention compared to glass ionomer sealants.Conclusion:All three types of sealants provided caries prevention benefits, but resin-based and bioactive sealants exhibited better retention and efficacy over time. Community-based programs should prioritize these materials for effective long-term caries prevention in children. Further research is needed to assess cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes in diverse populations.

The etiology and prevalence of ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molar: By Franklin Pulver. J. Dent. Children 35: 138–145, March, 1968

Effectiveness of Pit and Fissure Sealants for Preventing and Arresting Occlusal Caries in Primary Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background:The present investigation sought to comparethe retention rates of glass ionomer and resin-based sealants in the permanent first molars of children aged seven to twelve years old. Material and Methods:A total of 112 participants were recruited and randomly allocated to either Group A (glass ionomer sealants) or Group B (resin-based sealants), with retention rates for the sealants assessed after one year.Results:The findings demonstrated that glass ionomer sealants' retention rate was significantly lower than resin-based sealants' (p&lt; 0.05). Glass ionomer sealants had a retention rate of 57.1% compared to 81.3% for resin-based sealants. Conclusion:These results imply that resin-based sealants might be more successful in protecting the permanent first molars of kids between the ages of 7 and 12 against dental caries. This information can be useful to dental practitioners and policymakers in making decisions aboutthe optimal material for pi and fissuresealant application in this population.KeyWords: Dental caries,Molar, Population

Twenty-four month clinical evaluation of fissure sealants on partially erupted permanent first molars: Glass ionomer versus resin-based sealant

To evaluate the effectiveness of resin-based sealants and glass ionomer sealants on caries prevention in the first permanent molars. A randomized controlled, examiner-blinded, 2-year clinical trial with parallel groups was conducted. A total of 419 children (664 first molars) who had at least one sound first permanent molar with deep fissures or fissures with signs of non-cavitated lesions were recruited. They were randomly allocated into three groups.Helioseal F, a light-cured resin-based sealants was used in group R (136 children with 219 first molars). FUJI VII, a light-cured glass ionomer sealants was used in group G (130 children with 218 first molars) and group N (153 children with 227 first molars) was blank control.Follow-up examinations were conducted at 6, 12, and 24 month after sealing to examine the sealants retention and caries incidence. Chi-square test was used to compare the differences of caries incidence among the 3 groups.Generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to analyze the effective factors of caries incidence. During the 2-year follow-up period, 3.0% (6/197) of the teeth in group R, 6.7% (13/193) of the teeth in group G, and 14.7% (29/197) of the teeth in group N were diagnosed as having developed a cavitated lesion. The difference in the incidence of caries among the three groups was significant(P < 0.05). No significant difference in caries incidence was found between group R and group G (P > 0.05). The tooth-level preventive fractions were 79.6% for resin-based sealants and 54.4% for glass ionomer sealants, respectively. Both resin-based sealants and glass ionomer sealants can effectively prevent the incidence of caries in the first permanent molars. The two sealants have similar caries prevention effect.

The aim of this study was to compare the caries-preventive effect of two types of sealant modalities and to evaluate whether the caries-preventive effect is related to sealant retention. A hypothesis was tested in which a glass ionomer sealant, once applied to the occlusal surface, was able to protect the fissure from caries even if the sealant appeared lost at visual inspection. A 3-year randomized split-mouth trial evaluating two sealant modalities was performed at a public health centre in Finland. A chemically curing glass ionomer cement (GIC) and light-curing resin-based (RB) sealant material were applied randomly to the permanent second molars. Sealant application as a routine treatment procedure was carried out to 599 children in the age group of 12-16 years. Caries rate of the sealed teeth and sealant retention with both materials were analysed by a modified McNemar's test. The effectiveness, rate difference, and relative risk with both sealant materials were measured. The difference in caries rate between the two modalities was highly significant. When compared to the GIC sealant method, the effectiveness of RB sealant method was 74.1% and the rate difference 3.2% (95% CI 1.44%, 4.98%). The relative risk for RB-sealed surfaces vs. GIC-sealed surfaces of having detectable dentin caries was 0.26 (95% CI 0.12, 0.57). The retention rate of sealants was higher with RB than GIC (P < 0.001). The effectiveness of the retention rate for RB sealants was 94.8% and the rate difference 87.2% (95% CI 83.86%, 90.50%). The relative risk during the 3-year study period of having a defective or lost RB sealant was 0.052 (95% CI 0.036, 0.075) when compared to having a defective or lost GIC sealant. It is concluded that in preventing dentin caries a RB sealant programme including resealing when necessary was more effective than a single application of GIC. The original hypothesis was thus falsified.

Objective: To evaluate and compare the caries prevention effectiveness of a resin-based sealant and a glass ionomer sealant on permanent first molars in 7- to 9-years-old school children. Methods: A randomized controlled, examiner-blinded, 5-year clinical trial was conducted in 19 primary schools in Dalian, Liaoning province. Totally 419 children (with 664 first molars) who had at least one sound permanent first molar with deep fissures or fissures with signs of non-cavitated lesions were recruited and stratified and allocated randomly into three parallel groups. A resin-based sealant was used in Group R (136 children with 219 first molars) and a glass ionomer sealant was used in Group G (130 children with 218 first molars). The third group (Group N, 153 children with 227 first molars) with none of the two sealants applied was served as blank control. Follow-up examinations were conducted at 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 years after sealing in order to assess the retention of the sealants and the incidence of caries occurrence. Chi-square test was adopted to compare the differences of caries incidence among the 3 groups. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to analyze the effective factors of caries incidence. Results: During the 5-year follow-up period, 13.4% (23/172) of the teeth in Group R, 22.5% (40/178) of the teeth in Group G and 34.5% (57/165) of the teeth in Group N were diagnosed as having developed cavitated lesions. And the differences in the incidence of caries among the three groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). According to GEE, the resin-based sealant and the glass ionomer sealant were found to be the protection factors and the non-cavitated lesion before sealing was found to be the risk factor. The resin-based sealant was found to be the protection factor to the glass ionomer sealant when the blank control group was removed. Conclusions: Both resin-based sealant and glass ionomer sealant could effectively prevent the permanent first molars from the occurrence of carious lesions in 5 years. The resin-based sealant was superior to the glass ionomer sealant in caries prevention.

Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry PlatformStudy selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 12 months follow-up, in which fissure sealants, or fissure sealants together with fluoride varnishes, were compared with fluoride varnishes alone for preventing caries in occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth of children and adolescents.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Studies were grouped and analysed on the basis of sealant material type (resin-based sealant and glass ionomer-based sealant, glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer) and different follow-up periods. Odds ratio were calculated for caries or no caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth. Mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes and data. Evidence quality was assessed using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods.ResultsEight RCTs involving a total of 1747 children aged five to ten years of age were included. Three trials compared resin-based fissure sealant versus fluoride varnish. Results from two studies (358 children) after two years were combined. Sealants prevented more caries, pooled odds ratio (OR) = 0.69 (95%CI; 0.50 to 0.94). One trial with follow-up at four and nine years found that the caries-preventive benefit for sealants was maintained, with 26% of sealed teeth and 55.8% of varnished teeth having developed caries at nine years. Evidence for glass-ionomer sealants was of low quality. One split-mouth trial analysing 92 children at two-year follow-up found a significant difference in favour of resin-based fissure sealant together with fluoride varnish compared with fluoride varnish only (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55). The evidence was assessed as low quality. Three studies assessed but did not report any adverse effects.ConclusionsCurrently, scarce and clinically diverse data are available on the comparison of sealants and fluoride varnish applications; therefore it is not possible to draw clear conclusions about possible differences in effectiveness for preventing or controlling dental caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars. The conclusions of this updated review remain the same as those of the last update (in 2010). We found some low quality evidence suggesting the superiority of resin-based fissure sealants over fluoride varnish applications for preventing occlusal caries in permanent molars, and other low-quality evidence for benefits of resin-based sealant and fluoride varnish over fluoride varnish alone. Regarding glass ionomer sealant versus fluoride varnish comparisons, we assessed the quality of the evidence as very low and could draw no conclusions.