3-year survival rates of retained composite resin and ART sealants using two assessment criteria

Abstract

Abstract:The aim was to test the null-hypothesis that there is no difference in the cumulative survival rate of retained composite resin (CR) sealants and a high-viscosity glass-ionomer Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) sealant in first permanent molars calculated according to the traditional and the modified retention assessment criteria over a period of 3 years. This cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial consisted of 123 schoolchildren, 6-7-years-old. At baseline, high-caries risk pits and fissures of fully erupted first permanent molars were treated with CR and ART sealants. Evaluations were performed after 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 years. Retention was scored for free-smooth surface and for each of three sections into which the occlusal surface had been divided. The modified criterion differed from the traditional in that it determined an occlusal sealant to be a failure when at least one section contained no visible sealant material. Data were analysed according to the PHREG model with frailty correction, Wald-test, ANOVA and t-test, using the Jackknife procedure. The cumulative survival rates for retained CR and ART sealants in free-smooth and occlusal surfaces for both criteria were not statistically significantly different over the 3 years. A higher percentage of retained CR sealants on occlusal surfaces was observed at longer evaluations. Cumulative survival rates were statistically significantly lower for the modified criterion in comparison to the traditional. The modified retention assessment criterion should be used in future sealant-retention studies.

Educational strategies and atraumatic restorative treatment effect on salivary characteristics: A controlled clinical trial

“…When comparing glass-ionomer restorative material survival rate-a material often used in ART in primary and permanent posterior teeth-no difference was observed between conventional amalgam and glass-ionomer fillings performed in single or occlusal surface of primary molars after 2 years (de Amorim, Leal, Mulder, Creugers, & Frencken, 2014) and in permanent molars after 6 years (Mandari, Frencken, & van't Hof, 2003). Also, in the comparison of retained composite resin and high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in first permanent molars, the cumulative survival rates were not different over a period of 3 years (Hilgert, Leal, Freire, Mulder, & Frencken, 2017). Some properties of the glass-ionomer restorative material have been reported, such as continuing fluoride release, biocompatibility, and cariostatic potential, which could inhibit new caries lesions, acting in remineralization of initial lesions and promoting mineralization of adjacent tissue.…”

“…When comparing glass‐ionomer restorative material survival rate—a material often used in ART in primary and permanent posterior teeth—no difference was observed between conventional amalgam and glass‐ionomer fillings performed in single or occlusal surface of primary molars after 2 years (de Amorim, Leal, Mulder, Creugers, & Frencken, ) and in permanent molars after 6 years (Mandari, Frencken, & van't Hof, ). Also, in the comparison of retained composite resin and high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer ART sealants in first permanent molars, the cumulative survival rates were not different over a period of 3 years (Hilgert, Leal, Freire, Mulder, & Frencken, ).…”

Effectiveness of Sealants Treatment in Permanent Molars: A Longitudinal Study

“…Another reason why this retention is important is that sealants may be insufficient to reach the deeper parts of the teeth. 14 …”

“…Sealant is not very resistant to friction, it is flattened from the use of abrasive foods, but, the main areas of the tooth remain isolated good, which proves the positive continuous benefits of sealant treatment. 14 …”

“…The material of the sealants should be fluent to fill in the fissures and holes and to have sustainability to the fractures to resist the chewing forces and friction. 14 …”