N Schlueter1, J Klimek, C Ganss. 1. Department of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Dental Clinic of the Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany. nadine.schlueter@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Fissure sealings offer nearly complete protection against fissure caries, provided that they are adequately applied, for composite-based sealants with sufficient moisture control. This is not always attainable, particularly in children with low compliance. To counter this problem, a moisture-tolerant sealant has been developed. The present randomised clinical trial compared such a moisture-tolerant material (Embrace) with a conventional sealant (Helioseal). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 55 participants (mean age, 10 ± 3 years), corresponding molar pairs were sealed with either Embrace or Helioseal. Retention, quality of sealing, and caries were clinically examined, both tactilely and visually, immediately and after 1 year. RESULTS: After 1 year, 93% of Helioseal sealings were complete, whereas 60% of Embrace sealings showed partial and 13% complete loss. The surface quality of Embrace was significantly worse than that of Helioseal. After the use of Embrace, the sealant margin was noticeable as a slight (distinct) step in 36% (15%). The visual (tactile) examination showed a rough surface in 78% (33%) in the case of Embrace. The Helioseal surfaces were shiny (smooth) in all cases (all differences between Helioseal and Embrace, p ≤ 0.001). Caries was found only after the use of Embrace (4%, n.s. compared to Helioseal). CONCLUSION: The moisture-tolerant material Embrace was distinctly inferior to Helioseal because Embrace showed weaknesses in retention and surface quality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Even if a moisture-tolerant sealant would be desirable in particular for children with low compliance, the tested material does not represent an alternative to the standard preparation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Fissure sealings offer nearly complete protection against fissure caries, provided that they are adequately applied, for composite-based sealants with sufficient moisture control. This is not always attainable, particularly in children with low compliance. To counter this problem, a moisture-tolerant sealant has been developed. The present randomised clinical trial compared such a moisture-tolerant material (Embrace) with a conventional sealant (Helioseal). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 55 participants (mean age, 10 ± 3 years), corresponding molar pairs were sealed with either Embrace or Helioseal. Retention, quality of sealing, and caries were clinically examined, both tactilely and visually, immediately and after 1 year. RESULTS: After 1 year, 93% of Helioseal sealings were complete, whereas 60% of Embrace sealings showed partial and 13% complete loss. The surface quality of Embrace was significantly worse than that of Helioseal. After the use of Embrace, the sealant margin was noticeable as a slight (distinct) step in 36% (15%). The visual (tactile) examination showed a rough surface in 78% (33%) in the case of Embrace. The Helioseal surfaces were shiny (smooth) in all cases (all differences between Helioseal and Embrace, p ≤ 0.001). Caries was found only after the use of Embrace (4%, n.s. compared to Helioseal). CONCLUSION: The moisture-tolerant material Embrace was distinctly inferior to Helioseal because Embrace showed weaknesses in retention and surface quality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Even if a moisture-tolerant sealant would be desirable in particular for children with low compliance, the tested material does not represent an alternative to the standard preparation.
Authors: Boniek Castillo Dutra Borges; Giordano Bruno Paiva Campos; Ana Daniela Silva da Silveira; Kenio Costa de Lima; Isauremi Vieira de Assunção Pinheiro Journal: Am J Dent Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 1.522
Authors: M V Cardoso; A de Almeida Neves; A Mine; E Coutinho; K Van Landuyt; J De Munck; B Van Meerbeek Journal: Aust Dent J Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 2.291
Authors: Jean Beauchamp; Page W Caufield; James J Crall; Kevin Donly; Robert Feigal; Barbara Gooch; Amid Ismail; William Kohn; Mark Siegal; Richard Simonsen Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 3.634