Comparative Evaluation of Three Different Pit and Fissure Sealants

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Dental caries is an infectious mulifactorialdisease which can affect any tooth in the oral cavity. Assuch it is important to protect them from becoming carious.Resin sealant methods developed by Bowen in 1962 stillcontinue to form the basis of presently available sealants. Animportant factor for sealant success is its marginal integrityand retention. Hence this study was undertaken to assessthe retention and marginal discoloration of conventionalpit and fissure sealants, Glass ionomer sealant type VII andHelioseal-F. Study aimed to assess the retention and marginaldiscoloration of conventional pit and fissure sealants, glassionomer sealant type VII and helioseal -F.Material and methods: This study was conducted in a privatedental clinic in Bangalore from 2015 to 2016. Thirty childrenaged 6 to 8 years were selected. The children were divided into3 groups of 10 children each. First group, ortho Phosphoricacid etchant gel was applied with a disposable nylon applicatortip on to the pit and fissures. Conventional light-cured resinbased p.it-and-fissure sealant (Clinpro™ Sealant (3M ESPE)was cured with the light curing unit for 20 seconds. Secondgroup (Group II) Fuji VII cement was mixed according tomanufacturer’s instructions and applied to the occlusal surfaceusing a plastic-filling instrument and a disposable nylon brushto spread it into the pits and fissures. Third Group (Group III)Etching was done with 37% phosphoric acid for 20 seconds.Using the syringe needle tip, Helioseal F sealant was flowedinto the fissures for 20 seconds. First follow up examinationwas done at 3 months recall by using visual and tactileexamination. The sealants were examined for their integrity,retention and marginal discoloration. The data was obtainedat 3 months and 6 months intervals. The teeth were visuallyinspected for caries.Results: At 3-month evaluation 89.7% of retention was seenfor conventional resin sealant, 72.7% retention for HeliosealF and 65.3% for Glass ionomer sealant. At 6month followup 73.3% retention was seen for conventional resin sealant,52.4% retention for Helioseal F and 34.9% for Glass ionomersealant. There was no significant difference in terms ofmarginal discoloration between conventional resin sealantand helioseal F. However glass ionomer sealant showed asignificant marginal discoloration as compared to heliosealF. No significant differe-nce was seen in the development ofcaries between the three groups.Conclusion: Conventional sealants are better sealants withrespect to retention