European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 163–166 | Cite as

Clinical evaluation of three fissure sealants: 24 month follow-up

  • W. DukicEmail author
  • D. Glavina


Aim: This was to compare 3 different materials for fissure sealing (FS) after a clinical use during a 24 month period and to assess the use of flowable composite resins in combination with dentine adhesives as sealing materials. Study Design: There were 41 patients aged from 7–17 years, for whom 100 permanent molars were sealed with 3 different sealing materials. Methods: Group A, 33 teeth were sealed material Helioseal Clear Chroma (Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein); Group B, 33 teeth were sealed with Teethmate F1 (Kuraray, Kurashiki, Japan), and in Group C, 34 teeth were sealed with the flowable composite Tetric Flow (Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). For the analysis of the degree of retention, the criteria used were: 0-complete retention, 1-loss of 1/3 of material, 2-loss of 2/3 of material, 3-complete loss of material. Clinical criteria for appearance of a new caries lesion included following values: Caries present (+) or caries absent (−). Statistics: Chi-Square test was used for statistical analysis of retention rates between groups. Results: After the 24 month period, the highest retention rate of complete retention was established for the material Tetric Flow of 76.5%, Helioseal Clear Croma 66.7%, and Teethmate F1 60.6%. The incidence of caries with Helioseal Clear Croma was 6.1%, for Teethmate F1 3%, with no statistically significant difference after the 24 months period (p=0.656). In the group of teeth sealed with Tetric Flow, there was not a single case of caries noted. Conclusions: The use of flowable composite resins as sealing materials is equal to other materials for fissure sealing.

Key words

fissure sealing retention rate flowable composite adhesives 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Autio-Gold JT. Clinical evaluation of a medium-filled flowable restorative material as a pit and fissure sealant. Oper Dent 2002;27(4):325–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown LJ, Wall TP, Lazar V. Trends in untreated caries in permanent teeth of children 6 to 18 years old. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130:1637–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Buonocore MG. Principles of adhesive retention and adhesive restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1963;67:382–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Corona SA, Borsatto MC, Garcia L, Ramos RP, Palma-Dibb RG. Randomized, controlled trial comparing the retention of a flowable restorative system with a conventional resin sealant: one-year follow up. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15(1):44–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dukic W, Glavina D. Clinical evaluation of three different materials for fissure sealing after 12 months. Acta Med Croatica 2006; 60(3):209–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Forss H, Halme E. Retention of a glass ionomer cement and a resin-based fissure sealant and effect on carious outcome after 7 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1998; 26(1):21–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillet D, Nancy J, Dupuis V, Dorignac G. Microleakage and penetration depth of three types of materials in fissure sealant: self-etching primer vs etching: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002;26(2):175–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gungor HC, Altay N, Alpar R. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite-based fissure sealant: two-year results. Oper Dent; 2004 29(3):254–60.ÛÛPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hannig M, Grafe A, Atalay S, Bott B. Microleakage and SEM evaluation of fissure sealants placed by use of self-etching priming agents. J Dent 2004;32(1):75–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ismail AI, Gagnon P. A longitudinal evaluation of fissure sealants applied in dental practices. J Dent Res 1995;74(9):1583–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jensen OE, Handelman SL. Effect of an autopolymerizing sealant on viability of microflora in occlusal dental caries. Scand J Dent Res 1980; 88(5):382–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kakaboura A, Matthaiou L, Papagiannoulis L. In vitro study of penetration of flowable resin composite and compomer into occlusal fissures. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2002; 3(4):205–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kanellis MJ, Warren JJ, Levy SM. Comparison of air abrasion versus acid etch sealant techniques: six-month retention. Pediatr Dent 1997;19(4):258–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 1999;27(7):523–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaste LM, Selwitz RH, Oldakowski RJ et al Coronal caries in the primary and permanent dentition of children and adolescents 1–17 years of age: United States, 1988–1991. J Dent Res 1996; 75: 631–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lygidakis NA, Oulis KI. A comparison of Fluroshield with Delton fissure sealant: four year results. Pediatr Dent 1999;21(7):429–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lygidakis NA, Oulis KI, Christodoulidis A. Evaluation of fissure sealants retention following four different isolation and surface preparation techniques: four years clinical trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1994;19(1):23–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Meneghim MC, Saliba NA, Pereira AC. Importance of the first permanent molars in the determination of DMFT Index. J Bras Odontopediatr Odontol Bebê 1999;2:37–41.Google Scholar
  19. Pardi V, Pereira AC, Mialhe FL, Meneghim Mde C, Ambrosano GM. Six-year clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified composite resin used as fissure sealant. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2004;28(3):257–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pardi V, Pereira AC, Ambrosano GM, Meneghim Mde C. Clinical evaluation of three different materials used as pit and fissure sealant: 24-months results. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29(2):133–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Perry AO, Rueggeberg FA. The effect of acid primer or conventional acid etching on microleakage in a photoactivated sealant. Pediatr Dent 2003;25(2):127–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Puppin-Rontani RM, Baglioni-Gouvea ME, deGoes MF, Garcia-Godoy F. Compomer as a pit and fissure sealant: effectiveness and retention after 24 months. J Dent Child (Chic) 2006;73(1):31–6.Google Scholar
  23. Ripa LW. Sealants revisted: an update of the effectiveness of pit-and-fissure sealants. Caries Res 1993;27 Suppl 1:77–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rock WP, Foulkes EE, Perry H, Smith AJ. A comparative study of fluoride-releasing composite resin and glass ionomer materials used as fissure sealants. J Dent 1996;24(4):275–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Takeuchi M, Kizu T. Sealing of the pit and fissure with resin adhesive. I. Results of sealing on extracted teeth. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 1966;7(1):50–9.Google Scholar
  26. Tay FR, Pashley DH, King NM, et al. Aggressiveness of self-etch adhesives on unground enamel. Oper Dent 2004;29(3):309–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tulunoglu O, Bodur H, Uctasli M, Alacam A. The effect of bonding agents on the microleakage and bond strength of sealant in primary teeth. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26(5):436–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Vrbic V. Retention of a fluoride-containing sealant on primary and permanent teeth 3 years after placement. Quintessence Int 1999;30(12):825–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Yildiz E, Dorter C, Efes B, Koray F. A comparative study of two fissure sealants: a 2-year clinical follow-up. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31(10):979–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dental MedicineUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations