Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Resin-based Pit and Fissure Sealant and Self-adhering Flowable Composite: An In Vivo Study

Wadhwa, Saakshe; Nayak, Ullal Anand; Kappadi, Damodhar; Prajapati, Deepesh; Sharma, Reena; Pawar, Apurva

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1552

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the RB group, 75.7%, 54.1%, and 37.8% of sealants were affected, respectively, and these percentages were greater than those in the RB group at all follow-up times, especially at 12 months. Wadhwa et al reported (2018) [15] that the marginal integrity rate of self-adhering owable composite (Dyad ow) as a sealant was better than that of RB (Helioseal-F), which further supported our ndings. In a study by ElEmbaby et al ( 2019), the marginal integrity of the self-adhering owable composite (Fusio liquid Dentin) was high at the 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups, which is consistent with the results of the present study [19].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Comparison of the clinical performance of self-adhering flowable composite and resin-based pit and fissure sealant: a randomized clinical trial

gisour,

Jahanimoghadam,

Aftabi

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Self-adhering flowable composites are an innovative step in reducing the chair time of pit and fissure sealant treatment. This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of self-adhering flowable composite (SELF-ADH) and resin-based pit and fissure sealant (RBs). Methods: This is a double-blinded, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial conducted on 80 fully erupted permanent mandibular first molars from 40 children aged 6 to 12 years. For each participant, two permanent molars were randomly treated with SELF-ADH or RB. All sealants were assessed at 3, 6, and 12-month follow-ups considering retention, marginal integrity, marginal discolouration, colour matching, surface texture, and caries recurrence. To analyse the data, logistic regression and Fisher's exact tests were used (significance level P < 0.05). Results: At the 12-month follow-up, the number of fully retained sealants in the SELF-ADH group was 5.37 times greater than that in the RB group (P < 0.001). The success rate of marginal integrity in the SELF-ADH group was also 2.31 times greater than that in the RB group (P = 0.013), while the marginal discolouration was 2.23 times greater in the RB group (P < 0.001). The incidence of recurrent caries in teeth with partial loss of sealant in both groups (P = 0.004, P < 0.001) increased significantly over time. Conclusion: The retention and marginal integrity of the self-adhering flowable composite were significantly greater than those of the resin-based sealant. Therefore, due to the small number of work steps, flowable self-adhering composites can be used as alternatives to resin-based pit and fissure sealants. Trial registration: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Kerman University of Medical Sciences with the code IR.KMU.REC.1399.556 and Iraninan Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) code IRCT20180521039763N4, as well as full compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Comparison of the clinical performance of self-adhering flowable composite and resin-based pit and fissure sealant: a randomized clinical trial

gisour,

Jahanimoghadam,

Aftabi

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The review showed that the main self-adhesive flowable resins evaluated were Vertise Flow (Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA) [1,2,[15][16][17][18], and Fusio Dentin Liquid (Pentron Clinical, Orange, CA, USA) [19][20][21], Self-adhesive Bulk Fill Restorative (3M Oral Care, St Paul, MN, USA) [21], Filtek Supreme Ultra Flowable (3M ESPE, USA) [22], and Constic (DMG; Hamburg, Germany) [3].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This review assessed five distinct commercial brands of self-adhesive flowable composite resins (Table 2). Among the studies included, Vertise Flow resin (Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA) was evaluated in six studies [1,2,[15][16][17][18], while Fusio Dentin Liquid (Pentron Clinical, Orange, CA, USA) was examined in three [19][20][21]. Additionally, one study investigated Selfadhesive Bulk Fill Restorative (3M Oral Care, St Paul, MN, USA) [22], another focused on Filtek Supreme Ultra Flowable (3M ESPE, USA) [23], and Constic (DMG; Hamburg, Germany) was analyzed in a separate study [3].…”

Section: Descriptive Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All conventional flowable composite resins were applied to their respective adhesive systems. The comparison also evaluated the resin-based sealant Helioseal-F (Ivoclar Vivadent, Delhi, India) [21].…”

Section: Descriptive Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another material evaluated in the comparison was resin-based sealant Helioseal-F (Ivoclar Vivadent, Delhi, India) [21].…”

Section: Descriptive Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical Behavior of Self-Adhesive Composite Resin Restorations: Literature Review

Zanatta,

Cardoso,

Camilotti

et al. 2024

JAMMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-adhesive flowable composite resins are relatively new formulations on the market. These materials do not require the prior application of the adhesive system and, at the same time, can promote a durable seal at the tooth-restoration interface. However, there is little clinical information about these materials. Therefore, this review aimed to gather information on the clinical behavior of these self-adhesive materials by conducting a bibliographic search from 2010 to February 2024 in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Clinical follow-up studies of restorations performed with these materials were eligible for selection. The search terms used were “self-adhesive composite” or “self-adhesive flowable composite” where 14 complete articles were evaluated and 12 were selected. Only clinical follow-up studies of enamel and/or dentin restorations performed with self-adhesive resins were eligible for selection. This systematic review concluded that the self-adhesive flowable resin showed results comparable to those of the conventional flowable resin. However, studies have shown that for restorations in Class I and V cavities, self-adhesive flowable composite resin performed better than restorations in Class II cavities.

show abstract

Comparative evaluation of a fissure sealant and a flowable composite: A 36-month split-mouth, randomized clinical study

Ozan

Sancaklı

Erdemir

et al. 2022

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Resin-based Pit and Fissure Sealant and Self-adhering Flowable Composite: An In Vivo Study

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

Comparison of the clinical performance of self-adhering flowable composite and resin-based pit and fissure sealant: a randomized clinical trial

Comparison of the clinical performance of self-adhering flowable composite and resin-based pit and fissure sealant: a randomized clinical trial

Clinical Behavior of Self-Adhesive Composite Resin Restorations: Literature Review

Comparative evaluation of a fissure sealant and a flowable composite: A 36-month split-mouth, randomized clinical study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About