European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 309–315 | Cite as

Retention of fissure sealants in young permanent molars affected by dental fluorosis: a 12-month clinical study

  • S. HasanuddinEmail author
  • E. R. Reddy
  • M. Manjula
  • N. Srilaxmi
  • S. T. Rani
  • A. Rajesh
Original Scientific Article



To evaluate and compare retention and caries occurance following placement of Clinpro and FUJI VII fissure sealants, by two different techniques simultaneously in unsealed, contralateral young permanent molars of 7- to 10-year-old children affected by mild to moderate dental fluorosis at various recall intervals of 1 week, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months.

Study design

80 schoolchildren with mild to moderate dental fluorosis were assigned to Group A and Group B with 40 children in each group. In Group A Clinpro fissure sealant and in Group B Fuji VII fissure sealant was used. In both the groups fissure sealants were applied by conventional fissure sealant technique (CST) on one side and enameloplasty sealant technique (EST) on the other side of the same arch. The applied fissure sealants were evaluated clinically for retention and caries incidence.


Clinpro fissure sealant showed a retention rate of 95% when compared with Fuji VII (57.5%) at the end of 12 months, which was statistically significant. Regarding techniques, EST showed better results than CST in both the groups.


Comparison of groups with respect to retention and techniques at different time periods was performed using Mann–Whitney U test (p < 0.05). Comparison of different time periods with respect to retention and technique in all the groups was performed using Wilcoxon matched pairs test by ranks (p < 0.05).


Clinpro fissure sealant showed better retention at all treatment intervals, when compared with Fuji VII. Further follow-up is required to study the efficacy of the fissure sealant placement techniques.


Fissure sealants Dental fluorosis Enameloplasty 



We would like to acknowledge the headmasters, teachers and staff of all the three schools for their valuable contributions. The paper was presented at the 24th Congress of IAPD in Seoul, South Korea 2013.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. AAPD Caries-risk assessment tool (CAT). Pediatr Dent Reference Manual V31/NO.6,09/10.Revised 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Almerich-Silla JM, Montiel-Company JM, Ruiz-Miravet A. Caries and dental fluorosis in a western Saharan population of refugee children. Eur J Oral Sci. 2008;116(6):512–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchamp J, Caufield PW, Crall JJ, et al. Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affair. Dent Clin N Am. 2009;53(1):131–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burt BA. Fissure sealants: clinical and economic factors. J Dent Educ. 1984;48(2 Suppl):96–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carvalho JC, Ekstrand KR, Thylstrup A. Dental plaque and caries on occlusal surfaces of first permanent molars in relation to stage of eruption. J Dent Res. 1989;68(5):773–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garcia-Godoy F, de Araujo FB. Enhancement of fissure sealant penetration and adaptation: the enameloplasty technique. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1994;19(1):13–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gustafson G, Sundström B. Enamel: morphological considerations. J Dent Res. 1975;54:B114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Horowitz HS, Driscoll WS, Meyers RJ, Heifetz SB, Kingman A. A new method for assessing the prevalence of dental fluorosis—the tooth surface index of fluorosis. J Am Dent Assoc. 1984;109:37–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Loyola-Rodriguez JP, Mendoza-Razo V, Rodriguez-Juarez F, Campos-Cambranis R. Flowable resin used as a sealant in molars affected by dental fluorosis: a comparative study. J Clin Pediatric Dent. 2005;30(1):39–44.Google Scholar
  10. Lygidakis NA, Oulis KL, Christodoulidis A. Evaluation of fissure sealants retention following four different isolation and surface preparation techniques: a 4-year clinical trail. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1994;19:23–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Moller IJ. Fluorides and Dental Fluorosis. Int Dent J. 1982;32:134–47.Google Scholar
  13. Opinya GN, Pameijer CH. Tensile bond strengths of fluorosed Kenyan teeth using the acid etch technique. Int Dent J. 1986;36(4):225–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Pardi V, Pereira AC, Mialhe FL, Meneghim MC, Ambrosano GMB. A 5-year evaluation of two glass-ionomer cements used as fissure sealants. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31(5):386–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Poulsen S, Beiruti N, Sadat N. A comparison of retention and the effect on caries of fissure sealing with a glass-ionomer and a resin-based sealant. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001;29:298–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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;1996(24):275–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shapira J, Eidelman E. The influence of mechanical preparation of enamel prior to etching on the retention of sealants. J Pedod. 1982;6:283–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Shapira J, Eidelman E. The influence of mechanical preparation of enamel prior to etching, on the retention of sealants. J Pedod. 1984;8:272–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24:393–414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sudhir KM, Prashant GM, Subba Reddy VV, Mohandas U, Chandu GN. Prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis among 13- to 15-year-old school children of an area known for endemic fluorosis: Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh. J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent. 2009;27(4):190–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thylstrup A, Fejerskov O. Clinical appearance of dental fluorosis in permanent teeth in relation to histologic changes. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1978;6:315-28.Google Scholar
  22. Welbury R, Raadal M, Lygidakis NA. EAPD guidelines for the use of pit and fissure sealants. Eur J Paediatric Dent. 2004;5(3):179–84.Google Scholar
  23. William V, Burrow Michael F, Palamara Joseph EA, Messer Louise B. Microshear bond strength of resin composite to teeth affected by molar hypomineralization using 2 adhesive systems. Pediatr Dent. 2006;(28):233–41.Google Scholar
  24. Wondwossen F, Astrøm AN, Bjorvatn K, Bårdsen A. The relationship between dental caries and dental fluorosis in areas with moderate- and high-fluoride drinking water in Ethiopia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32(5):337–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wright GZ, Hatibovic-Kofman S, Millenaar DW, Braverman I. The safety and efficacy of treatment with air-abrasion technology. Int J Paediatr Dent. 1999;9:133–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Xalabarde A, Garcia-Godoy F, Boj JR, Canaida C. Fissure micromorphology and sealant adaptation after occlusal enameloplasty. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1996;20(4):299–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Hasanuddin
    • 1
    Email author
  • E. R. Reddy
    • 2
  • M. Manjula
    • 2
  • N. Srilaxmi
    • 2
  • S. T. Rani
    • 2
  • A. Rajesh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PedodonticsGovernment Dental College and HospitalHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Department of Pedodontics and Preventive DentistryKamineni Institute of Dental SciencesNalgondaIndia

Personalised recommendations