One-year clinical evaluation of the retention of resin and glass ionomer sealants on permanent first molars in children

Graciano, Kamila Prado Pereira; Moysés, Marcos Ribeiro; Ribeiro, José Carlos Rabelo; Pazzini, Camila Alessandra; Melgaço, Camilo Aquino; Ramos‐Jorge, Joana

doi:10.1590/1677-3225v14n3a03

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sealing pits and fissures is an effective caries‐preventive measure, protecting teeth from occlusal caries, particularly in children and young individuals. However, the most efficient sealing material for long‐term caries prevention and recommendation for clinical use has been the subject of numerous previous studies, but there has not been a definitive conclusion about the superiority of one material, resin‐based sealant or GIC 7,12–15,24 . Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the retentive and caries protective ability of four different materials for sealing pits and fissures in a split‐mouth study design.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ADA states that previous research has not shown a statistically significant difference between different sealing materials in the effectiveness of preventing the occurrence of caries on the occlusal surfaces of teeth 4 . Some previous studies highlighted the lack of evidence for the superiority of resin‐based sealant materials in comparison with GI sealants as long as they are properly retained on the tooth surface 12–15 . The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the retentive and caries protective ability of four different materials for sealing pits and fissures in children 6–13 years old during the 2‐year prospective observational split‐mouth study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…4 Some previous studies highlighted the lack of evidence for the superiority of resin-based sealant materials in comparison with GI sealants as long as they are properly retained on the tooth surface. [12][13][14][15] The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the retentive and caries protective ability of four different materials for sealing pits and fissures in children 6-13 years old during the 2-year prospective observational split-mouth study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Retention and caries‐preventive effect of four different sealant materials: A 2‐year prospective split‐mouth study

Reić

Galić

Vranić

2022

Int J Paed Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The aim of this observational split‐mouth study was to compare the retention and caries protective effect of four different sealant materials in children aged 6–13 years during a 2‐year follow‐up period. Design Eighty children were included in this study, which was conducted in Blato (Korčula island), Croatia. Each participant received at least two different sealant materials on caries‐free permanent molars in two different quadrants. Sealant materials (M1 – glass‐ionomer cement; M2, M4 – resin‐based filled sealants; M3 – resin‐based unfilled sealant) were delivered in a random order. Results The results of this study showed that M2 (30 teeth, 46.2%) and M4 (27 teeth, 46.6%) showed statistically significantly higher number of teeth with total retention after 2‐year follow‐up period, in comparison with M1 (10 teeth, 19.2%) or M3 (12 teeth, 20.7%) (p < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in caries occurrence between different groups in which the sealant material was totally retained. Conclusions According to the results of this study, filled resin‐based sealant materials showed better retention during the 2‐year follow‐up period while both resin‐based and glass‐ionomer sealants demonstrated protection against dental caries if totally retained on the occlusal surface.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retention and caries‐preventive effect of four different sealant materials: A 2‐year prospective split‐mouth study

Reić

Galić

Vranić

2022

Int J Paed Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study is also in line with that of Çubukçu ( 2009), which found that caries preventive efficacy and survival rate of GIC is inferior to resin based sealant following a 12 month usage (Journal, Stomatology). 12 The study by Graciano (2015) evaluated sealant retention in two-month interval (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10 th and 12th) over the course of one year.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Caries Occurence Between Resin Based and Glass Ionomer Based Pit and Fissure Sealants in Young Permanent Molars After One Year Application

Kasuma¹,

Biomed²,

Fitriana³

et al. 2018

GJHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of anatomic grooves or pits and fissures on the occlusal top of permanent grinders retains food scraps and increases the formation of caries. Inserting and fastening these exposed regions with pit-and fissure sealants has the potential to avert the occurrence of these injuries in teeth. The tools used for such process have the shape of a resin based and a glass ionomer cement (referred to as GIC hereafter). This study aims to compare white spot index (ICDAS) after applying resin based and fissure sealant glass ionomer, and to determine the more efficient types of material over a long period of time method. This study uses experimental pre-test and post-test methods. The research population consists of grade I, II, and III elementary students from the Elementary School No.2, Central Cupak, Padang. Samples were obtained through purposive sampling. The research involves 2 types of sample each of which consists of 30 children who were given resin based sealant application as well as glass Ionomer. ICDAS-II index was used to assess white spot index following one year application. The research data was analyzed with SPSS Statistics through unpaired t-test. The result shows that there is no major distinction between resin based sealant application and glass ionomer cement following one year application(p = 0,23). This study concludes that resin based sealants and glass ionomer cement constitute valuable pit and fissure sealant materials. The reaction of these materials must be evaluated over a longer period to determine the mean retention period and to confirm if a new application is needed.

show abstract

“…The absence of caries in the assessed restorations may be due because the participants were undergoing oral treatment (in the phase after conditioning of the oral environment) and maintained satisfactory oral hygiene. Moreover, the evolution in GIC has contributed to the reduction of dental caries because of its characteristics [31][32] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical evaluation of two materials in the restoration of abfraction lesions

Medeiros¹,

Santos²,

Araújo³

et al. 2015

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the clinical performance of a composite resin (CR) and a resin-modified glassionomer cement (RMGIC) for the treatment of abfraction lesions. Methods: Thirty patients with abfraction lesions in at least two premolar teeth were selected and invited to participate in this study. All restorations were made within the same clinical time frame. One tooth was restored with CR Z100 TM (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA), and the other was restored with RMGIC Vitremer TM (3M). The restorations were assessed immediately and 1, 6 and 12 months after the restoration, using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria: marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, wear, retention, secondary caries and hypersensitivity. The statistical analysis was based on Friedman ANOVA test and Mann-Whitney test, considering p<0.05 for statistical significance. Results: Both materials demonstrated satisfactory clinical performance after one year. In the individual analysis of each material, there was a significant difference (p<0.05) in the criteria marginal integrity and wear, for both CR and RMGIC. RMGIC exhibited more damage one year after the restoration. Comparing both materials, it was found a significant difference only for marginal discoloration, while the RMGIC restorations showed the worst prognosis after a year of evaluation. There was no significant difference in the number of retentions, caries or hypersensitivity between CR and RMGIC. Conclusions: It was concluded that CR exhibited the best clinical performance according to the cost-effectiveness and evaluation criteria used in this study.

show abstract

One-year clinical evaluation of the retention of resin and glass ionomer sealants on permanent first molars in children

Cited by 6 publications

References 21 publications

Retention and caries‐preventive effect of four different sealant materials: A 2‐year prospective split‐mouth study

Retention and caries‐preventive effect of four different sealant materials: A 2‐year prospective split‐mouth study

Comparison of Caries Occurence Between Resin Based and Glass Ionomer Based Pit and Fissure Sealants in Young Permanent Molars After One Year Application

Clinical evaluation of two materials in the restoration of abfraction lesions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About