European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 88–92 | Cite as

A two-year evaluation of four different fissure sealants

  • Y. YýlmazEmail author
  • N. Beldüz
  • O. Eyübo


AIM: To evaluate fissure sealants based on Bis-GMA [Fissurit F (FF) and Fissurit FX (FFX)], compomer [Dyract Seal (DS)] and ormocer [Admira Seal (AS)] with respect to retention, marginal integrity and presence of caries after a 2-year period of follow-up. METHODS: 80 children aged 7–13 years (mean age: 9.4±1.3 years), were included, giving a total of 320 first permanent molars for the study units. Clinical evaluation of the sealants was carried out to assess retention, marginal integrity and presence of caries at 12 and 24 months after initial treatment. RESULTS: Retention of compomer-based DS sealant was significantly lower than that of the others at the 12- and 24-month follow-up examinations (12 month, P<0.000; 24 month, P<0.006). No significant differences between the sealants were observed in marginal integrity (12 month, P>0.473; 24 month, P>0.069) or presence of caries (12 month, P>0.055; 24 month, P>0.777) at any follow-up examination. CONCLUSION: While sealants composed of different resin matrices showed differences in retention, they were similar with respect to marginal integrity and presence of caries. Surface conditioning and the organic structure of the material are factors that may affect sealant retention.

Key Words

Sealants organic structure filler retention caries prevention marginal integrity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arenholt-Bindslev D, Breinholt V, Preiss A, Schmalz G. Time-related bisphenol-A content and estrogenic activity in saliva samples collected in relation to placement of fissure sealants. Clin Oral Investig 1999; 3: 120–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baseren M, Yazici AR, Ozalp M, Dayangac B. Antibacterial activity of different generation bonding systems. Quintessence Int 2005; 36(3): 339–344.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bottenberg P, Alaerts M, Keulemans F. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: Three-year results. J Dent 2007; 35: 163–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Erten H, Uctasli MB, Akarslan ZZ,et al. Restorative treatment decision making with unaided visual examination, intraoral camera and operating microscope. Oper Dent 2006; 31(1): 55–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feigal RJ. Sealants and preventive restorations: review of effectiveness and clinical changes for improvement. Pediatr Dent 1998; 20: 85–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Francescut P, Lussi A. Correlation between fissure discoloration, Diagnodent measurements, and caries depth: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent 2003; 25: 559564.Google Scholar
  7. Fuks AB, Eidelman E, Lewinstein I. Shear strength of sealants placed with non-rinse conditioning compared to a conventional acid etch-rinse technique. J Dent Child 2002; 69: 239–242.Google Scholar
  8. Ganss C, Klimek J, Gleim A. One year clinical evaluation of the retention and quality of two fluoride releasing sealants. Clin Oral Investig 1999; 3: 188–193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gomez SS, Basili CP, Emilson CG. A 2-year clinical evaluation of sealed non-cavitated approximal posterior carious lesions in adolescents. Clin Oral Investig 2005; 9: 239–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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): 254–260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials FDI Commission Project. Int Dent J 1998; 48: 3–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koch MJ, Garcia-Godoy F, Mayer T, Staehle HJ. Clinical evaluation of Helioseal F fissure sealant. Clin Oral Investig 1997; 1: 199–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kugel G. Direct and indirect adhesive restorative materials: a review. Am J Dent 2000; 13: 35–40.Google Scholar
  14. Llodra JC, Bravo M, Delgado-Rodriguez M, Baca P, Galvez R. Factors influencing the effectiveness of sealants—a meta-analysis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1993; 21(5): 261–268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties of new composite restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res 2000; 53: 353–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McComb D, Tam LE. Diagnosis of occlusal caries: Part I. Conventional methods. J Can Dent Assoc 2001; 67: 454–457.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Powers JM. Composite restorative materials. In Restorative Dental Materials, Mosby, USA, 11 th edition, pp. 231–57, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. Ram D, Mamber E, Fuks AB. Clinical performance of a non-rinse conditioning sealant in three paediatric dental practices: a retrospective study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005; 15: 61–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rock WP, Weatherill S, Anderson RJ. Retention of three fissure sealant resins. The effects of etching agent and curing method. Results over 3 years. Br Dent J 1990; 168: 323–325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rugg-Gunn AJ. Dental caries. In Paediatric Dentistry, Oxford University Press Inc, New York, second edition, 2001, pp. 95–114.Google Scholar
  21. Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24(5): 393–414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Tagtekin DA, Yanikoglu FC, Bozkurt FO, Kologlu B, Sur H. Selected characteristics of an ormocer and a conventional hybrid resin composite. Dent Mater 2004; 20: 487–497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tanaka M, Ono H, Kadoma Y, Imai Y. Incorporation into human enamel of fluoride slowly released from a sealant in vivo. J Dent Res 1987; 66: 1591–1593.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wright GZ. Psychologic management of children’s behaviors. In Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent, St. Louis, Mosby Inc, seventh edition, pp. 34–51,2000.Google Scholar
  25. Yakut N, Sonmez H. Resin composite sealant vs. polyacid-modified resin composite applied to post eruptive mature and immature molars: two year clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2006; 30: 215–218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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: 979–984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Paedodontics 25240Atatürk University, Faculty of DentistryErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations