AIM: To compare the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 48 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors enrolled 244 teeth, each with no restoration or sealant and no detectable caries, from 16 patients. The sealants were placed with Solobond M two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or Futurabond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = completely retained, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. The Pearson χ (2) test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period. RESULTS: The retention rates for sealants in the Solobond M group were significantly higher than those in the Futurabond NR group in all periods of evaluation (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference between the retention rates for premolars and molars was found at each evaluation period (p>0.05). There was no new caries formation throughout the 48-month recall period. CONCLUSION: Fissure sealants placed with etch-and-rinse adhesive showed better retention rates than those placed with self-etch adhesive.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 48 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors enrolled 244 teeth, each with no restoration or sealant and no detectable caries, from 16 patients. The sealants were placed with Solobond M two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or Futurabond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = completely retained, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. The Pearson χ (2) test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period. RESULTS: The retention rates for sealants in the Solobond M group were significantly higher than those in the Futurabond NR group in all periods of evaluation (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference between the retention rates for premolars and molars was found at each evaluation period (p>0.05). There was no new caries formation throughout the 48-month recall period. CONCLUSION: Fissure sealants placed with etch-and-rinse adhesive showed better retention rates than those placed with self-etch adhesive.