Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant: A 24-month split-mouth, randomized, and controlled study

Green LED as an Effective Light Source for Curing Acrylate-Based Dental Resins in Combination with Irgacure 784

“…Acrylate-based photopolymers are important materials for cardiovascular applications [7], for in vivo drug delivery [8], and for minimally invasive procedures. Dimethacrylate-based resins have many applications in restorative dentistry, being used as adhesives and pit-and-fissure sealants, can be combined with silanecoated glass fillers to render the most widely used esthetic direct restorative material, and can be used as cementation agents and veneering materials [9][10][11][12]. Photopolymerization starts with exposure to a light source, the operation wavelength of which depends on the photoinitiator added.…”

Retention and Effectiveness of Dental Sealant After Twelve Months in Iranian Children

“…During routine recall examinations, it is necessary to re-evaluate the sealed tooth surface both visually and tactually for loss of material, exposure of voids in the material, and caries development. The need for PFS reapplication is usually highest during the first six months after placement (9,11). When PFS are partially lost and require repair, the dentist should vigorously attempt to dislodge the remaining PFS material with an explorer.…”

“…The same etchant and PFS material had been applied for all children during that period of time. The PFS were evaluated in terms of retention and the presence of caries as follows: full retention, the materials were fully present on the occlusal surfaces; partially lost, the materials were present but part of a previously sealed pit, fissure, or both was exposed as a result of either wear or loss of the material; totally lost, no trace of materials was detected on the surface; and presence of caries, caries lesions were evaluated according to the Caries Associated with Restorations and PFS scores of the ICDAS-II visual classification criteria (9). Only two situations were considered for the outcome analysis: caries prevention (success) was recorded when the PFS completely or partially covered the pits and fissures and the tooth was sound; and caries (failure) was recorded when the PFS was completely or partially lost and the tooth was carious (cavitated lesion).…”

“…This will prevent penetration of fermentable carbohydrates, which can be used by the bacteria remaining on the fissures, as well as colonized by new bacteria. It is assumed that the residual bacteria in biofilm that remain in the fissure after thorough cleaning, do not survive under a properly applied PFS or cannot multiply if they survive (9). A correlation has been found between PFS retention and anti-cariogenic effectiveness; although caries is completely prevented when fissures remain sealed, PFS retention rates decline to 85% after one year and to 50% after five years (10).…”

“…Therefore, the retention rate becomes a determinant of their effectiveness as a caries prevention measure. On the other hand, a partial loss of the PFS material inherently leads into caries development underneath the PFS (9,11). A PFS is rarely retained completely over the tooth lifetime and must be reapplied.…”