Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777052
Original Article

Retention Rate of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Resin-Based Sealant under Field Conditions: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Araya Thetsanasalee
1   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Siriruk Nakornchai 
1   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Varangkanar Jirarattanasopha 
1   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
› Author Affiliations Clinical Trial Registration This study was registered in the Thai Clinical Trial Registry (identification number: TCTR20230412003).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical retention rate between hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealant placed under field setting and related factors.

Materials and Methods Sixty-six children with 106 pairs of teeth in the same arch with matching International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) scores ranging from 0 to 2 were recruited. This study was a split-mouth design with each tooth in the pair randomly assigned into either hydrophobic resin-based sealant group (Concise white sealant, 3M. EPSE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) or hydrophilic resin-based sealant group (UltraSeal XT hydro sealant, Ultradent Products, South Jordan, Utah, USA). A dental therapist performed all procedures in a field setting on a mobile dental unit with a mobile saliva ejector. The retention rate was evaluated by two calibrated dentists and classified as fully retained, partially retained, and total loss.

Statistical Analysis The outcomes were analyzed using McNemar's, chi-squared, and Fisher's exact test with a significance level of 0.05.

Results After 12 months, 65 children with 105 pairs of teeth remained in this study. At 8-month follow-up, fully retained, partially retained, and total loss of material were found at 82.9, 15.2, and 1.9% in the hydrophobic group and 70.5, 26.7, and 2.9% in the hydrophilic group, respectively. At the 12-month follow-up, the outcomes were reduced, respectively, to 80, 17.1, and 2.9% in the hydrophobic group and 68.6, 27.6, and 3.8% in the hydrophilic group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). Arch type was associated with the retention rate (p < 0.05), whereas ICDAS scores showed no correlation (p > 0.05).

Conclusion Both hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealant can be used under field conditions, with no significant difference in terms of retention rate.

Keywords

field conditions - hydrophilic - hydrophobic - retention - resin - sealant

Ethical Approval Statement

This clinical study was performed in human participants. All procedures were approved by Faculty of Dentistry/Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Institutional Review Board (COA.No.MU-DT/PY-IRB 2021/024.2202).




Publication History

Article published online:
22 February 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Fact sheet: Oral Health. [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. [updated 2020 May 25; cited 2020 September 20]. Accessed October 21, 2023 at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/oral-health
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Wright JT, Tampi MP, Graham L. et al. Sealants for preventing and arresting pit-and-fissure occlusal caries in primary and permanent molars: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials-a report of the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2016; 147 (08) 631-645.e18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wright JT, Crall JJ, Fontana M. et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2016; 147 (08) 672-682.e12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Muller-Bolla M, Lupi-Pégurier L, Tardieu C, Velly AM, Antomarchi C. Retention of resin-based pit and fissure sealants: a systematic review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2006; 34 (05) 321-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Welbury R, Raadal M, Lygidakis NA. European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry. EAPD guidelines for the use of pit and fissure sealants. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2004; 5 (03) 179-184
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bhat PK, Konde S, Raj SN, Kumar NC. Moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant: a boon. Contemp Clin Dent 2013; 4 (03) 343-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Prabhakar AR, Murthy SA, Sugandhan S. Comparative evaluation of the length of resin tags, viscosity and microleakage of pit and fissure sealants - an in vitro scanning electron microscope study. Contemp Clin Dent 2011; 2 (04) 324-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Prabakar J, John J, Arumugham IM, Kumar RP, Srisakthi D. Comparative evaluation of retention, cariostatic effect and discoloration of conventional and hydrophilic sealants - a single blinded randomized split mouth clinical trial. Contemp Clin Dent 2018; 9 (2, Suppl 2): S233-S239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Schlueter N, Klimek J, Ganss C. Efficacy of a moisture-tolerant material for fissure sealing: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17 (03) 711-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tianviwat S, Hintao J, Chongsuvivatwong V, Thitasomakul S, Sirisakulveroj B. Factors related to short-term retention of sealant in permanent molar teeth provided in the school mobile dental clinic, Songkhla province, Southern Thailand. J Public Health 2011; 41 (01) 50-58
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Simonsen RJ, Neal RC. A review of the clinical application and performance of pit and fissure sealants. Aust Dent J 2011; 56 (1, Suppl 1): 45-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hintao J, Tianviwat S. Retention rate and methods for improving pit and fissure sealant programs in Thailand. J Public Health Dent 2013; 11 (01) 47-61
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Feigal RJ. Sealants and preventive restorations: review of effectiveness and clinical changes for improvement. Pediatr Dent 1998; 20 (02) 85-92
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Haricharan PB, Voruganti S, Kotha A, Mahalakshmamma Shivanna M, Gandhi B, Suresh N. An efficacy study between high viscosity glass ionomers and resin sealants in fissure caries prevention: a 2-year split mouth randomized controlled trial. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (01) 137-144
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Haricharan PB, Barad N, Patil CR, Voruganti S, Mudrakola DP, Turagam N. Dawn of a new age fissure sealant? A study evaluating the clinical performance of embrace WetBond and ART sealants: results from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (04) 503-509
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mohapatra S, Prabakar J, Indiran MA, Kumar RP, Sakthi DS. Comparison and evaluation of the retention, cariostatic effect, and discoloration of conventional Clinpro 3M ESPE and Hydrophilic Ultraseal XT Hydro among 12-15-year-old schoolchildren for a period of 6 months: a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020; 13 (06) 688-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ratnaditya A, Kumar M, Sai S, Zabirunnisa M, Kandregula C, Kopuri R. Clinical evaluation of retention in hydrophobic and hydrophilic pit and fissure sealants-a two year follow-up study. J Young Pharm 2015; 7: 171-179
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Berdouses ED, Michalaki M, Tsinidou K, Vlachou A, Pantazis N, Oulis CJ. Effectiveness of fissure sealants on initial caries lesions (ICDAS 1-3) of permanent molars: a 4-year follow-up. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2021; 22 (03) 180-188
    PubMedGoogle Scholar