UNLABELLED: This clinical trial evaluated the retention rate of a flowable restorative system (Bond 1 + Flow-It!) used as a pit-and-fissure sealant compared with a conventional filled resin sealant (Fluroshield) over a 1-year period. METHOD: Using a half-mouth design, 160 sealants (80 in primary and 80 in permanent teeth) were placed on sound first/second primary molars and first permanent molars of 40 children aged between 4 and 7 years. For both primary and permanent dentitions, half the teeth (n = 40) were sealed with Fluroshield and half (n = 40) with Bond 1 + Flow-It! Teeth were evaluated at baseline, 6- and 12-month intervals. RESULTS: For both materials, there was no total loss of sealants placed on either the primary or permanent molars over 1 year. From Fluroshield sealants placed on primary teeth, 33 were completely intact after 6 months and 31 after 1 year. From those placed on permanent molars, no loss of material was observed after 6 months, while partial loss was noticed on 5% of teeth at 1-year recall. For Flow-It! resin applied on primary molars, partial loss of material was observed in only 1 sealant after 6 months and in 2 sealants after 1 year. On permanent teeth, 100% retention rate was observed over a 1-year follow up. There was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.01) between the sealing materials on primary but not permanent teeth, and, overall, Flow-It! sealants presented a higher retention rate at both 6-month and 1-year evaluations. Significant differences (P < 0.01) between baseline and the other evaluation periods were also observed. CONCLUSION: It may be concluded that the flowable restorative system yielded optimal retention on both primary and permanent molars. Its retention rate was significantly higher than that of the conventional pit-and-fissure sealant on primary teeth.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: This clinical trial evaluated the retention rate of a flowable restorative system (Bond 1 + Flow-It!) used as a pit-and-fissure sealant compared with a conventional filled resin sealant (Fluroshield) over a 1-year period. METHOD: Using a half-mouth design, 160 sealants (80 in primary and 80 in permanent teeth) were placed on sound first/second primary molars and first permanent molars of 40 children aged between 4 and 7 years. For both primary and permanent dentitions, half the teeth (n = 40) were sealed with Fluroshield and half (n = 40) with Bond 1 + Flow-It! Teeth were evaluated at baseline, 6- and 12-month intervals. RESULTS: For both materials, there was no total loss of sealants placed on either the primary or permanent molars over 1 year. From Fluroshield sealants placed on primary teeth, 33 were completely intact after 6 months and 31 after 1 year. From those placed on permanent molars, no loss of material was observed after 6 months, while partial loss was noticed on 5% of teeth at 1-year recall. For Flow-It! resin applied on primary molars, partial loss of material was observed in only 1 sealant after 6 months and in 2 sealants after 1 year. On permanent teeth, 100% retention rate was observed over a 1-year follow up. There was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.01) between the sealing materials on primary but not permanent teeth, and, overall, Flow-It! sealants presented a higher retention rate at both 6-month and 1-year evaluations. Significant differences (P < 0.01) between baseline and the other evaluation periods were also observed. CONCLUSION: It may be concluded that the flowable restorative system yielded optimal retention on both primary and permanent molars. Its retention rate was significantly higher than that of the conventional pit-and-fissure sealant on primary teeth.