Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 73–81 | Cite as

A comparative study of clinical effectiveness of fissure sealing with and without bonding systems: 3-year results

  • C. SakkasEmail author
  • L. Khomenko
  • I. Trachuk
Original Scientific Article

Abstract

Aim

This prospective clinical study evaluated the sealant retention rate and caries-preventive efficacy of two fissure sealing techniques over a 3-year period.

Methods

Subjects (87) aged between 6.5 and 11.5 years were enrolled into two groups. In Group I (41 subjects), a resin-based fissure sealant (Fissurit FX, VOCO, Germany) was placed on all four sound permanent first molars (FPM-164 teeth) of each subject and in Group II (46 subjects) on 4 caries-free premolars (P1–2 182 teeth),using the following adhesives systems: Optibond FL (Kerr, USA), Optibond Solo plus (Kerr, USA), Prompt-L-Pop (3 M ESPE, USA) or the conventional acid-etch technique. Sealed teeth were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36-month intervals with regard to retention and new caries development. Sealant retention was scored as: (1) complete retention; (2) partial loss; (3) complete loss of sealant.

Statistics

Wilcoxon-signed rank test was used to analyse the data.

Results

The complete retention rate was: Optibond FL/sealant 80.01–82.92 %, Optibond Solo plus/sealant 73.78–74.27 %, Prompt-L-Pop/sealant 42.84–53.65 % versus acid-etch technique 62.86–71.44 % on FPM and P1–2 (p < 0.05). The fissure caries incidence rate was: Optibond FL/sealant 2.43–2.85 %, Optibond Solo plus/sealant 2.85–4.76 %, Prompt-L-Pop/sealant 24.40–34.28 % versus acid-etch technique 16.66–17.14 % (p < 0.05) on FPM and P1–2. A statistically significant difference in sealant retention rate was observed between FPM and P1–2, using the self-etching adhesive system Prompt-L-Pop and acid-etch technique.

Conclusion

It may be concluded that the use of adhesive systems Optibond FL and Optibond Solo plus yielded better fissure sealing performance.

Keywords

Pit and fissure sealant Adhesive systems Retention rate 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the staff at the Department of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry of Bogomolets National Medical University for their assistance. There was no commercial/financial relationship, interest, or association that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the article.

References

  1. Al-Sarheed MA. Evaluation of shear bond strength and SEM observation of fissure sealant. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006;7:9–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Asselin ME, Fortin D, Sibon Y, Rompre PH. Marginal micro leakage of a sealant applied to permanent enamel: evaluation of 3 application protocols. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30:29–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Burbridge LA, Nugent Z, Deery C. Randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of a one step conditioning agent in fissure sealant. Eur Arch Pediatr Dent. 2007;8:49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burrow MF, Makinson OF. Pits and fissures: remnant organic debris after acid-etching. ASDC J Dent Child. 1990;57:348–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Burrow JF, Burrow MF, Makinson OF. Pits and fissures: relative space contribution in fissures from sealants, prophylaxis pastes and organic remnants. Aust Dent J. 2003;48:175–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cehreli ZC, Gungor HC. Quantitative microleakage evaluation of fissure sealants applied with or without a bonding agent: results after four-year water storage in vitro. J Adhes Dent. 2008;10:379–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Celiberti P, Lussi A. Use of a self-etching adhesive on previously etched intact enamel and its effect on sealant microleakage and tag formation. J Dent. 2005;33:163–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. dos Santos KT, Sundfeld RH, Garbin CA, et al. Length of resin tags in pit-and-fissure sealants: all-in-one self-etching adhesive vs. phosphoric acid etching. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2008;29:186–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Erickson RL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. Effect of pre-etching enamel on fatigue of self-etch adhesive bonds. Dent Mater. 2008;24:117–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Kimmes NS. Fatigue of enamel bonds with self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2009;25:716–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feigal RJ, Hitt J, Splieth C. Retaining sealant on salivary contaminated enamel. JADA. 1993;124:88–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Feigal RJ, Quelhas I. Clinical trial of a self etching adhesive for sealant application: success at 24 months with Prompt-L-Pop. Am J Dent. 2003;16:249–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuks AB, Kupietzky A. Assessment of two curing systems in a self etching primer adhesive sealant: a preliminary study for a clinical trial. Eur Arch Pediatr Dent. 2007;8:171–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grégoire G, Ahmed Y. Evaluation of the enamel etching capacity of six contemporary self-etching adhesives. J Dent. 2007;35:388–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greene JC, Vermillion JR. The simplified oral hygiene index. J Am Dent Assoc. 1964;68:7–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hannig M, Bock H, Bott B, Hoth-Hannig W. Inter-crystallite nanoretention of self-etching adhesives at enamel imaged by transmission electron microscopy. Eur J Oral Sci. 2002;110:464–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hebling J, Feigal RJ. Use of one-bottle adhesive as an intermediate bonding layer to reduce sealant microleakage on saliva contaminated enamel. Am J Dent. 2000;13:187–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hipólito VD, Alonso RC, Carrilho MR, et al. Microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamel. Braz Dent J. 2011;22:122–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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;3:205–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Locker D, Jokovic A, Kay EJ. Prevention. Part 8: the use of pit and fissure sealants in preventing caries in the permanent dentition of children. Br Dent J. 2003;195:375–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lührs AK, Guhr S, Schilke R, et al. Shear bond strength of self-etch adhesives to enamel with additional phosphoric acid etching. Oper Dent. 2008;33:155–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lussi A, Hibst R, Paulus R. DIAGNOdent: an optical method for caries detection. J Dent Res 2004;83(Spec No C):80–3.Google Scholar
  23. Mascarenhas AK, Nazar H, Al-Mutawaa S, Soparkar P. Effectiveness of primer and bond in sealant retention and caries prevention. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30:25–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nagayassu MP, Shintome LK, Arana-Chavez VE, Fava M. Micro-shear bond strength of different adhesives to human dental enamel. Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;35:301–4.Google Scholar
  25. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater. 2001;17:430–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perdigão J, Fundingsland JW, Duarte S Jr, Lopes M. Microtensile adhesion of sealants to intact enamel. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2005;15:342–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perdigão J, Lopes MM, Gomes G. In vitro bonding performance of self-etch adhesives: II—ultramorphological evaluation. Oper Dent. 2008;33:534–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peutzfeldt A, Nielsen LA. Bond strength of a sealant to primary and permanent enamel: phosphoric acid versus self-etching adhesive. Pediatr Dent. 2004;26:240–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pinar A, Sepet E, Aren C, et al. Clinical performance of sealants with and without a bonding agent. Quintessence Int. 2005;36:355–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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;15:61–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simonsen RJ. Cost effectiveness of pit and fissure sealant at 10 years. Quintessence Int. 1989;20:75–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Suh BI, Feng L, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part III. Effect of acidic resin monomers. J Adhes Dent. 2003;5:267–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sundfeld RH, De Oliveira CH, Da Silva AM, Briso AL, Sundfeld ML. Resin tag length of one step and self etching adhesives bonded to unground enamel. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2005;46:43–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taschner M, Nato F, Mazzoni A, et al. Role of preliminary etching for one-step self-etch adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci. 2010;11:517–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Etched enamel structure and topography: Interface with materials. In: Eliades G, Watts DC, Eliades T, editors. Dental hard tissues and bonding. Berlin: Springer; 2005. p. 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trevor FJ. What’s new in dentine bonding? Self-etch adhesives. Dent Update. 2004;31:580–9.Google Scholar
  37. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentine: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003;28:215–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Venker DJ, Kuthy RA, Qian F, Kanellis MJ. Twelve-month sealant retention in a school-based program using a self-etching primer/adhesive. J Public Health Dent. 2004;64:191–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yamada Y, Hossain M, Kimura Y, et al. Removal of organic debris from occlusal fissures: advantage of Carisolv system over sodium hypochlorite. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010;35:75–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Yazici AR, Karaman E, Baseren M, et al. Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled fissure sealant placed with different adhesive systems: 24-month results. Oper Dent. 2009;34:642–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Private Paediatric Dental ClinicNicosiaCyprus
  2. 2.Department of Paediatric and Preventive DentistryThe O.O. Bogomolets National Medical UniversityKyivUkraine

Personalised recommendations