[Downloaded from http://www.jisppd.com on Sunday, February 01, 2015, IP: 180.246.55.

35]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal

ISSN 0970 - 4388

Retention of a resin-based sealant and a glass ionomer used as a fissure
sealant: A comparative clinical study
SUBRAMANIAM P.1, KONDE S.2, MANDANNA D. K.3

Abstract
Sealing occlusal pits and fissures with resin-based sealants is a proven method of preventing occlusal caries. Retention of the
sealant is very essential for its efficiency. This study evaluated the retention of glass ionomer used as a fissure sealant when
compared to a self-cure resin-based sealant.
One hundred and seven children between the ages of 6–9 years, with all four newly erupted permanent first molars were selected.
Two permanent first molars on one side of the mouth were sealed with Delton, a resin-based sealant, and the contralateral two
permanent first molars were sealed with Fuji VII glass ionomer cement. Evaluation of sealant retention was performed at regular
intervals over 12 months, using Simonsen’s criteria. At the end of the study period, the retention of the resin sealant was seen
to be superior to that of the glass ionomer sealant.
Keywords: Glass ionomer cement, pit and fissure, resin, sealant

Methods of caries prevention should pay special attention to
surfaces with pits and fissures because they have always been
the earliest and most common sites to be affected by caries.
Occlusal caries is most prevalent in children as a result of the
morphology of pit and fissure surfaces: they are stagnation
areas, where plaque formed is anatomically protected from
even a single toothbrush filament by the dimensions of the
fissure.[1] Probably, the most caries-susceptible period of a first
permanent molar is the long eruption phase. At this period,
the enamel immatured, the child and parents often do not
know that a new tooth is erupting, and it is usually difficult
for the child to clean the erupting tooth surfaces.[2] Preventive
measures such as control of bacterial plaque and topical
applications of fluoride solutions have little effect on such
surfaces.[3] More effective measures are therefore necessary,
such as the application of occlusal sealants.[4]

fluoride and adhere to the enamel.[6] The new glass ionomer
Fuji VII (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) which has a high
fluoride release has been introduced for caries stabilization
and protection of susceptible tooth surfaces. This study was
taken up to compare the retention of a self-cure resin-based
pit and fissure sealants with a glass ionomer cement.

Materials and Methods
Children aged between 6–9 years were examined in their
respective schools after obtaining consent from the concerned
school authorities. Dental examination was performed in
natural daylight using sterile and disposable mouth mirrors
with good reflecting surfaces and dental explorers.
Healthy cooperative children with all four newly erupted
caries-free and untreated permanent first molars were
selected for inclusion in the study. The inclusion criteria
specified that the occlusal surfaces had to be fully visible
and free of mucosal tissue. The children with hypoplastic
permanent first molars, developmental anomalies were
excluded from the study.

Since their introduction in Dentistry many commercial
preparations are available. These sealants differ according to
the base material used, the method of polymerization, and
whether or not they contain fluoride. Although the majority of
sealants available in the market have the same basic chemical
composition hence, it is important to know the effectiveness
and retention capacity of each sealants.[4] The ability of a
sealant to release fluoride, in addition to occluding pits and
fissures, would be a distinct advantage over the conventional
resin-based sealants.[5]

Out of 120 children who fulfilled the inclusion criteria,
the parents of 107 children gave their written consent for
participation in the study. Ethical clearance to conduct the
study was obtained from the institutional review board.
The children were brought to the Department of Pedodontics
and Preventive Dentistry for pit and fissure sealant
application. A single operator carried out oral prophylases
procedures for each child, followed by prophylaxis using a
slurry of pumice and a rotating brush to ensure the removal
of debris from the fissures.[7] The occlusal surfaces of the
first permanent molars were thoroughly flushed with water
to remove the traces of isolation of permanent first molars

Ionomeric cements have been suggested to be ideal material
for sealing pits and fissures due to their ability to release
1
Professor and Head, 2Former Associate Professor, 3Former PG
Student, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry,
The Oxford Dental College, Hospital and Research Centre,
Bommanahalli, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka, India

J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent - September 2008

114

and then dried by blotting with a cotton pellet. as compared to only 27. The pink-colored glass ionomer was applied as a sealant on 26 and 36.7% (57 teeth) that had glass ionomer sealant treatment. The occlusal surfaces were gently cleaned with GC Dentin Conditioner for 20 s. RESEN SEALANT GLASS IONOMER SEALANT Months Months Results Comparison of retention of the two sealants [Table 1 and Figure 1] At the third month of evaluation.1% of glass ionomer sealant (27 teeth).com on Sunday. The cement was mixed as per the manufacturer’s instructions and applied to the occlusal surface using a plastic filling instrument. resin sealant was partially retained and on 139 teeth (67.3% (81 teeth) that had resin sealant applied. This amount of sealant.55. Forty-nine percent (102 teeth) of resin sealant was partially retained. Comparison of the two sealants at the end of 1 year showed complete retention of 14% of resin sealant as compared to only 0. Twenty percent of resin sealant (43 teeth) was completely retained as compared to only 2.4%). A significant difference was also seen in the retention of the two sealants at the ninth month of evaluation. exibited missing glass ionomer sealant.9% of glass ionomer sealant (2 teeth). The occlusal surface was dried and the liquid etchant provided (35% phosphoric acid) was applied with a disposable nylon brush into the pits and fissures and extended up the cuspal inclines.. Twenty-three teeth (11. a difference was statistically significant. Nine of the resin-sealed teeth (4. Intra-examiner variability was minimized by reexamining on 10% of patients. This difference was also significant.[8] Both sealants showed highest loss at the sixth month of evaluation. 9. A disposable nylon brush was used to spread it properus on to the pits and fissures. and re-etched. Etching was confirmed by a dull frosty-white appearance of the enamel. 57. Partial sealant retention was seen in 104 teeth (50.246.9%) showed missing glass ionomer sealant. 2015.2% of glass ionomer sealant. The difference in the degree Figure 1: Retention of resin sealant and glass ionomer sealant. This difference was highly significant.[8] Each tooth was etched for 60 s and then rinsed thoroughly for 30 s using an oilfree air-water syringe. the surface was again cleaned. rinsed for 20 s. Partial sealant retention was seen in 39. Twenty-nine percent (61 teeth) showed missing resin sealant and 60.22% The patients were instructed not to eat or drink anything for 30 min.jisppd. PA) was applied following the manufacturer’s instructions on 16 and 46. they were recalled for assessment of sealant retention at intervals of 3. which were then thoroughly blow-dried.35]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal Retention of sealants was achieved using cotton rolls and a saliva ejector held by an assistant. Delton (Dentsply International.4%) and 11 of the glass ionomer–sealed teeth (5. while glass ionomer sealant was partially retained on 76 teeth (36. February 01.4%).5%) glass ionomer sealant was partially retained. Retention of the sealants at the specified time intervals was evaluated using Simonsen’s criteria. IP: 180. 6. Thirty-eight percent of resin sealant (79 teeth) was completely retained as compared to only 13. The cotton rolls were substituted.September 2008 . The two sealant components were mixed together thoroughly for 10 second and disposable applicator tubes inserted into applicator handles were used to draw up a measured amount of sealant. A probe was used to remove air bubbles and ensure sealant flow into all pits and fissures. 147 (71. which was suitable for an occlusal surface. An explorer was used to check for complete application of pits and fissures. On 77 teeth (37. 115 J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent . was gradually dispensed along the fissures.[Downloaded from http://www.9% of glass ionomer sealant (6 teeth).28% (59 teeth) of resin sealant was completely retained on upper teeth as compared to 59. Comparison of sealant retention on upper and lower first permanent molars [Table 2 and Figure 2] Resin sealant At the third month. The sealant was protected with a coat of petroleum jelly.2% (124 teeth) showed missing glass ionomer sealant. The surfaces were not desiccated and appeared moist and glistening. and 12 months.[9] The data obtained was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis using the Chi-square test and the Fisher exact test.3%) showed missing sealant. York. taking care not to contaminate the etched surfaces. The self-cure opaque resin-based sealant.0%) sealed with glass ionomer sealant.[8] of retention between the two sealants was highly significant. If salivary contamination occurred. This difference was highly significant.5%) sealed with resin sealant as compared to 101 teeth (49. dried.2%) showed missing resin sealant and 78 teeth (37. Forty-six percent (95 teeth) showed missing resin sealant and a significantly higher number of teeth.9%). as compared to only 27. 58% of resin sealant was completely retained.

6 14.18% (28 teeth) of lower teeth showed missing sealant. The resin sealant was missing from 49% of upper teeth (51 teeth) and from 42.33%).13% (30 teeth) on lower teeth.07% of sealant (32 teeth) was completely retained on upper teeth as compared to 45. 31. (61 teeth) of sealant on lower teeth.[12] Isolation by rubber dam or cotton rolls are equally effective in retention rates.5 11. At the sixth month. At the sixth month.September 2008 Most of the sealants available in the market are resin based.72%) and on 37 lower teeth (35. none of the glass ionomer sealant was completely retained on upper teeth as compared to only 1. It was partially retained on 70 upper teeth (67.74% of glass ionomer sealant (nine teeth) was completely retained on upper teeth as compared to 17. and contamination of the operating field. Thirty-two percent (33 teeth) of upper teeth and 27. 2015. The preventive effects of the sealant are maintained only as long as it remains completely intact and bonded in place.88% of lower teeth (4 teeth).001** <0.15%).[11] Glass ionomer sealant At the third month.94% of sealant (two teeth) on lower teeth.001** P<0. 14 upper teeth (13. a technique that has been referred to as partial isolation.1 49 37. Sealant was missing from seven upper teeth (6%) and four lower teeth (3. The sealant was partially retained on 44 upper teeth (42. The sealant was partially retained on 56 upper teeth (54.83% of sealant (six teeth) on lower teeth. The sealant was missing on 11 upper teeth (10%) and 12 lower teeth (11. This difference was significant. 25.88%).9 36.[8.24% of sealant (26 teeth) was completely retained on upper teeth as compared to 29. At the ninth month.05* is significant.3 13.55.47% of sealant (18 teeth) on lower teeth. 7.9 49. This difference was significant.36%) and on 46 lower teeth (44.66%). operator variability.com on Sunday.92%). Thirty percent of partial retention was seen in 31 upper teeth which was significantly different from 44% on 45 lower teeth. and to be clean and dry at the time of the procedure. At the twelfth month. 8.07%).[10] Adequate retention of sealant requires the sealed tooth to have a maximum surface area with deep.1 Number of teeth 56 139 11 27 101 78 6 76 124 2 57 147 Percentage 27.99%) lower teeth.59%) showed complete sealant retention as compared to 29 lower teeth (28.4 38. Seventy-six percent (78 teeth) of upper teeth and 67% of lower teeth showed a missing sealant. This difference was also significant.4 4.35]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal Retention of sealants Table 1: Retention of resin sealant and glass ionomer sealant Evaluation period 3rd month 6th month 9th month 12th month Retention Complete Partial Missing Complete Partial Missing Complete Partial Missing Complete Partial Missing Resin sealant (n=206) Number of teeth 120 77 9 79 104 23 43 102 61 30 81 95 Glass ionomer sealant (n=206 ) Percentage 58. The caries-preventive property of sealants is based on the establishment of a seal which prevents nutrients from reaching the microflora in the fissure.72%) and on 57 lower teeth (55.2 67.76% of resin sealant (8 teeth) was completely retained on upper teeth as compared to 21.[Downloaded from http://www. such as patient cooperation.jisppd. Forty-eight percent (50 teeth) of upper teeth and 27. Sealant was partially retained on 60 upper teeth (58.001** 0.[4] It has been stated that absolute isolation is not necessary for the application of sealants as long as extreme care is taken 116 .6 39. At the twelfth month.27%) and on 32 lower teeth (31.4 P value <0. this was a significant difference. The glass ionomer sealant was partially retained on 25 upper teeth (24.3 50. placement of a resin is very technique-sensitive and is influenced by several factors.768 <0.9 60.18% of lower teeth (28 teeyh) showed missing sealant.3 46. IP: 180. none of the glass ionomer sealant was completely retained on upper J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent . Sealant was partially retained on 44 upper teeth (42.25%) and on 44 lower teeth (42.7 71.36% of sealant (22 teeth) on lower teeth.001** <0. cotton rolls were used. At the ninth month.001** 0.89%).9 27. This difference was significant.96%) and on 69 (66. Discussion Dental sealants have been proved to be highly effective in the prevention of pit and fissure caries. This difference was significant.2 0.647 <0.001** 0.65%). February 01. Partial retention of resin sealant was seen on 39 upper teeth (37.86%) and on 38 lower teeth (36.71% of lower teeth (44 teeth). which makes it difficult to etch partially erupted molars. The resin sealant was missing on 4% of upper teeth (5 teeth) and 3. The glass ionomer sealant was missing from 72 upper teeth (70%) and 52 lower teeth (50%).001** is highly significant teeth as compared to 5.13] In this study. This difference was significant.012* <0.5 29. This difference was significant.72%). However.2 20.001** <0. [5] A major drawback of sealing fissures with resins is that the clinical procedure is extremely sensitive to moisture.9 2. P<0.246.3 37.001** 0.63% of sealant (47 teeth) on lower teeth. irregular pits and fissures.010* <0.5 5.

[12] Glass ionomer sealants offer similar caries-preventive effects as resin-based sealants.27) 78 (75.353 0.28) 39 (37.69) 52 (50.498 0.032* 0.e.070 0.51) 61(59. eliminating the need for untreated control teeth.09) 72 (69.07) 69 (66.25) 11 (10.043* 0. to be used as controls. These tinted sealants are easily visible and chairside time is saved at follow-up.063 0.318 0.73) 30 (29.36) 33(32. difficulty with moisture control in partially erupted teeth or in children with management problems or in very young children.[17] Such studies should use a split-mouth design that does not withhold treatment benefit from the patient.15) 46 (44.72) 50 (48. 39.163 0. parents are reassured when they can see the sealants on their child’s teeth. followed by a second loss associated with material wear under the forces of occlusion. it also simplifies record keeping by use of clinical photographs.6% complete retention.885 0.[17] Also.18) 22 (21. GLASS IONOER SEALANT Most of the studies on sealants have used the half-mouth design. An alternative is to compare the retention of at least two sealants in the same mouth.010* 0.006* 0. while the contralateral teeth remained unsealed.[12] The ease of application. The addition of color to a sealant greatly improves perception at application and on recall examination. 2015. thus retaining the sealant.24) 70 (67.90) 25 (24.882 0. in which the teeth on one side of the mouth were treated. Figures in parentheses are in percentage RESIN SEALANT tooth structure.49) 2 (1.[15] These advantages of glass ionomer cement make it a suitable sealant for community care programs.[20] In our study. reduction in operating time.89) 4(3.76) 44 (42.07) 60 (58.67) 14 (13.74) 44 (42.96) 7 (6.36) 37 (35.88) 18 (17.47) 57 (55.59) 56 (54.[17] White was found to be the most esthetically acceptable color for patients.04) 8 (7.004* 0. at the end of 1 year.79) 9 (8.jisppd.92) 44 (42.[Downloaded from http://www. as compared with patients who have clear resin sealants placed.71) 0.72) 12 (11.63) 44 (42.029* 0.86) 5 (4.85) 32 (31.026* 0.999 0. A 15–20 s etch.276 0.September 2008 .66) 28 (27.246.05* is significant.18) 6 (5.13) 69 (66.94) 32 (31.[8] Many researchers confirm that the Glassionomers are seperately be preferable for sealing newly erupted teeth.com on Sunday. with easier manipulation and without the use of acid etching.3% partial retention.[17] As the sealant is clearly visible to the child. to avoid salivary contamination of the etched surface. and 46% 117 J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent .[14] They are biocompatible and have a coefficient of thermal expansion slightly lower than that of Reported evidence of sealants needing replacement or repair in contemporary studies averages between 5 and 10% per year.328 Glass ionomer sealant Upper teeth (n=103) Lower teeth (n=103) 26 (25.55. the chief criticism of opaque sealants is the inability to visually detect progression of caries underneath them.002* 0.54) 31 (30.[16] Unsealed homologous paired teeth cannot.165 *P<0. The disadvantages of resin sealants lie in their hydrophobic nature.33) 28 (27.[18] However.778 0.22) 38 (36. IP: 180.88) 47 (45. for either primary or permanent dentition. February 01.825 0.72) 51 (49. This constant reminder of the presence of a preventive agent will help in the motivational aspects of the preventive program.99) 4 (3.65) 29 (28.[4] Etching roughens the tooth surface and produces a honeycomb-like structure so that tags of sealant can penetrate deeply into the enamel and form an effective mechanical bond. U=Upper tooth L=Lower tooth rd th th th 3 month 6 month 9 month 12 month rd th th th 3 month 6 month 9 month 12 month Figure 2: Comparison of sealant retention on upper and lower teeth. the resin sealant showed 14. it is of benefit to encourage the child to look periodically for any sealant loss. so their retention on tooth structure depends on the durability of the mechanical bond.[19] Clinical evidence suggests that sealant loss (retention failure) occurs in two phases: there is an initial loss due to faulty technique (such as moisture contamination). The glass ionomer may be valuable as a sealant in cases of difficult operating conditions i.35]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal Retention of sealants Table 2: Comparison of sealant retention on upper and lower teeth Evaluation period Retention 3rd month Complete Partial Missing Complete Partial Missing Complete Partial Missing Complete Partial Missing 6th month 9th month 12th month Resin sealant P value Upper teeth (n=103) Lower teeth (n=103) 59 (57.99) P value 0.445 0.531 0.83) 45 (43. Resins do not form hydrolytically stable bonds. and the adherence of these materials to moist teeth favors their placement. should be adequate for sealant retention.

. and exfoliation). as the setting reaction of glass ionomer sealant is fast.[3] Also. This was in accordance with Whitehurst and Soni. Stephen et al.[23] The presence of prismless enamel on newly erupted teeth confers a morphological difference in the etching pattern and a smaller surface area for bonding. i.. Although the cement may be applied to such a fissure.[3] Other possible explanations for the poor retention of glass ionomer sealant include inability to obtain adequate cooperation for isolation in the younger children. observed a retention rate of 89% after 4 years following mechanical preparation of pits and fissures. hence reducing the strength of the adhesive joint. and finally. and insufficient curing time). listed poor placement technique (inadequate moisture control. reported that only 12 out of nearly 400 teeth remained completely sealed after 1 year in a study performed under field conditions.246.[24] However. found that 3 years after application. with only 13.[30] In present study. inadequate rinsing and drying. Surface irregularities may result in entrapment of air voids. however. The low wear resistance of glass ionomer materials to occlusal forces may contribute for cement disintegration. and the age of the patient.9% missing. reported a 93% retention rate after 6 months and 82.September 2008 118 .[28] Some manufacturers recommend that the enamel surface be cleaned with a diluted polyacrylic acid solution prior to sealant application.[20] Other variables which influence sealant retention include the position of the tooth in the mouth. and 71.[28] The topography of the occlusal surfaces may be an obstacle for good adhesion. The highest rate of sealant loss was seen at the sixth month. difficulty in application on partially erupted teeth. which would predispose to surface degradation and early loss of sealant. the skill of the operator. i. 27. For this reason. the cement may have been exposed to saliva before it had completely set. when used as fissure sealants. while retention of glass ionomer sealant was a low 2–8%.9% showing complete retention. are not successful when placed in fissures that have no orifice. This procedure. IP: 180.jisppd. They observed a total loss of 94% after 6 months. with only 38% of sealant completely retained and 51% partially retained. glass ionomers. They also reported only 18% of first and second molars were completely sealed after 1 year. inadequate etching. there is evidence that teeth sealed very early after eruption require more frequent reapplication of the fissure sealant than teeth sealed later. which could be attributed to their use of rubber dam isolation and sealant reapplication.[Downloaded from http://www. Songpaisan and coworkers in a field trial. The twelfth month evaluation showed very low retention. February 01.[10] Also.[28] In addition. the glass ionomer sealant (Fuji III) was lost in almost 90% of teeth compared to only 10% loss of the resin sealant Delton. which would make sealant application more cumbersome. may decrease if the instructions are not followed properly. 49% partially retained. material wear. the glass ionomer sealant was missing from more than half the treated teeth. 2015. since this phase is marked by a significant increase in viscosity which inhibits resin penetration and thereby retention.e.[25] Also. thus reducing the ability of the cement to flow readily and to adhere to the surface. the routine clinical use of a glass ionomer sealant was unreliable because of poor retention. the effect of pumice prophylaxis on retention of sealants was not of any significant effect.com on Sunday. and hence its adhesive strength.[27] One main reason for the loss of the glass ionomer sealants J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent . which can influence the clinical performance of sealants.55. the ability of the sealant to penetrate into fissures. and mucosal tissue covering the occlusal surface.[22] Considering possible reasons for failure of resin sealant. not sealing all pits/fissures. Anson et al.7% showing partial retention.[28] missing sealant. non–sealant failure (extraction of tooth. it will soon be lost through erosion / abrasion.[29] Increase in the proportion of powder results in a more viscous cement which also sets faster.[26] McKenna and Grundy. By contrast. when glass ionomer was used as sealant in patent fissures (exceeding 100 µm in width). however. the resin sealant was missing from nearly half the treated teeth.[21] Lygidakis et al. and 37. excessive salivation. who found that the greatest sealant loss occurred during the first 6 months.[24] In vitro studies on the influence of various pretreatment procedures on adhesion between glass ionomer and enamel indicate that adhesion can be considerably improved by conditioning the enamel surface before application of cement. by thinning the sealant and eventually erosion of material.4% showing missing sealant. However. proximal caries. Maintenance of sealants is vital for long-term success. with only 0.[27] Poulsen et al. found retention of resin sealant to be 92% after 6 months.[28] Taylor and Gwinnett reported that pumice particles lodged in the fissures are not removed after rinsing.1% completely retained.[32] According to Boksman and colleagues (1987). a disadvantage of autopolymerizing resins is that they should be in place before setting of the resin begins..35]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal Retention of sealants could be inadequate adhesion of the cement to the enamel surface. The considerably lower retention rate obtained with the glass ionomer compared with the resin-based sealant is in agreement with previous studies.5% after 1 year. the sixth month of evaluation revealed the highest rate of loss of glass ionomer sealant. failure due to a combination of these factors.e. A high retention rate of 76–85% after 10 months was observed by Shashikiran et al. might compromise the wettability and penetration of the sealant into enamel producing a low retention rate.[31] When resins are attached to enamel by acid-etching techniques they provide stronger mechanical bonds than the molecular bonds of glass ionomer cements.

Pickard’s manual of operative dentistry.127:351-61. Pinelli C.[10. A comparative study between visiblelight-activated and autopolymerizing sealants in relation to retention. Hebling J. 6th ed. The decrease in retention rates found in 8–9-year-old children may be related to the occlusal stress that occurs during eruption. IP: 180. glass ionomer sealants can be considered as a viable alternative. 9.com on Sunday. Recently. et al. • The retention of sealants on mandibular teeth was superior to that on maxillary teeth. Ambrosano GM. 119 Kidd EA. Nilsen OL. Pit and fissure sealant application: Updating the technique. Raadal M. Fairhurst CW. 16. 8. Ripa LW. A three-year follow-up of glass ionomer cement and resin fissure sealants. Saarni UM. it would appear that long-term retention of glass ionomer fissure sealants is not a prerequisite for caries prevention and such treatment should perhaps be regarded more as a form of very prolonged fluoride application rather than as a sealing of fissures. Seppä L. which diffuses into surrounding enamel during the retention period. 14. the use of a glass ionomer as a fissure sealant should be encouraged rather than the traditional approach of waiting until the tooth fully erupts. Winter GB. Simonsen RJ. Della-Giustina VE.35]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal Retention of sealants Conclusions The caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer sealant depends on both retention of sealant and release of fluoride from the sealant.103:235-8.49:171-3. Effectiveness of occlusal fissure cleansing methods and sealant micromorphology. Smales RJ. Cole WW.[33] Scanning electron microscopy of fissures has shown the cement to remain in the deeper recesses. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1995. J Am Dent Assoc 1996. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1994. Holt RD. 2. or due to both. Pickard HM. 2015. 11. February 01. Chan DD. Br Dent J 1996. Occlusal sealing and caries prevention: Results 12 months after a single application of adhesive resin. Effects of glass ionomer sealants in newly erupted first molars after 5 years: A pilot study. van Dijken JW. Feigal RJ. Oxford University Press. In the earlier stages of mandibular eruption. 3. 7. gravity-aided flow of the sealant.63:175-80. Improved sealant retention with bonding agents: A clinical study of two-bottle and single-bottle systems. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003. acting as a plug. Gillespie B. Brooks JE. Mertz-Fairhurst EJ. Della-Giustina VE. Aranda M.30:127-39. Ga.31:314-9. In children with high risk of caries and partially erupted molars. Smith BG.102:323-7. Summitt JB. Fissure sealants: A 4-year clinical trial comparing an experimental glass polyalkenoate cement with a bis glycidyl methacrylate resin used as fissure sealants. The clinical effectiveness of a colored pit and fissure sealant at 36 months. Waggoner WF.6:235-9. Int J Pediatr Dent 1995. Int Dent J 2002. Williams et al.52:67-70. Basting RT. Mertz-Fairhurst EJ. Musherure P. Vertuan V. This is in agreement with other studies that have compared resin-based sealants and glass ionomer sealants.62:108-10. Taifour D.’ The following conclusions were drawn from the study: • The retention of the resin sealant was superior to that of the glass ionomer cement at the end of 1 year. Ga. ASDC J Dent Child 1991.[27] Also.68:168-74. concerns have been raised about the possibility that estrogenic chemicals. Laxton L. especially bisphenol-A (BPA) and bisphenol-A dimethacrylate (BPADMA) resin-based sealants.122:34-42. 10. Even where glass ionomer sealants appear clinically to have been totally lost. Davis JM. Clinical evaluation of the retention and wear of a light-cured pit and fissure glass ionomer sealant.[29] 6. J Dent Res J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent .55. Retention and effectiveness of dental sealant after 15 years. Beiruti N. A comparative study of two pit and fissure sealants: Results after 4 1/2years in Augusta. Truin GJ. the effect of occlusal stress on the sealant of the maxillary molar appeared at an earlier stage of eruption compared with that of the mandibular molar. Occlusal sealants: Rationale and review of clinical trials.jisppd. 15.180:104-8. 19. Yip HK. Menighim MC. Garcia-Godoy F. Williams B. The use of glass ionomers as interim sealants is highly beneficial in newly erupted teeth when the risk of caries is highest. Quelhas I. 12. Gandini M. 17. References 1. Simonsen RJ.[34] 13. ASDC J Dent Child 2001. The bioavailability of the leachable fluoride ion. Thus. 5. ASDC J Dent Child 1996. Fairhurst CW. J Am Dent Assoc 1981. Forss H.19:273-7.22:21-4.[8] Whether the prevention of caries is due to obturation of the fissures or to the local presence of fluoride. This study revealed higher sealant retention rates for the mandibular teeth. Comparison of glass-ionomer and resinbased fissure sealants: A 2-year clinical trial. Int Dent J 1980. J Am Dent Assoc 1981. Pereira AC. would increase the resistance of enamel to demineralization. van’t Hof MA. It has been suggested that fluoride released by the glass ionomer sealant material and taken up by the adjacent enamel can prevent the development of caries even after visible loss of sealant material. A comparative clinical study of two pit and fissure sealants: Six-year results in Augusta. Siegal M. 18. Glass ionomer cements used as fissure sealants with the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: Review of literature. 4. the maxillary teeth contact only mandibular cusps not reaching the sealant. Fissure sealing with a light-cured resinreinforced glass-ionomer cement (Vitrebond) compared with a resin sealant. and the presence of well-defined pits and fissures contribute to superior retention. Dental sealants are a proven tool in caries prevention. J Am Dent Assoc 1991.[Downloaded from http://www. Levy-Polack M.29] This could be because of direct visualization during application.September 2008 . Utkilen AB. Garcia-Godoy F.105:237-9. 1990. J Am Dent Assoc 1982. Clinical evaluation of glass ionomers used as fissure sealants: Twenty-four-month results. Pardi V.58:297-9. Pope BD Jr.[14] The establishment of a fluoride reservoir might be expected to contribute to caries prevention and to make the effectiveness of glass ionomer materials as sealants less dependent on the long-term retention of the material. J Dent Res 1970. Williams JE. Ripa LW. ASDC J Dent Child 1995. Brooks JD. Williams JE. Frencken JE. suggested that glass ionomers used as sealants should be regarded as slow-release fluoride reservoirs and be called ‘fluoride depot cements. Karlzen-Reuterving G.246. there remain small particles of material attached to the enamel of the occlusal fissures.

fluoride and nonfluoride containing and filled fluoride containing pit and fissure sealants.48:56-9. Jayanthi M.42:233-9. Bangalore-560068.125:543-9. Donnan MF. Victoria. 2015. Kawakami S. J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent .22:56-62. Arrow P. Br Dent J 1988. Herle GP. A comparison of Fluoroshield with Delton fissure sealant: Four year results. Glass-Ionomer Cement. Feigal RJ. Karnataka.[Downloaded from http://www. Sadat N.79:1850-6. A comparison of retention and the effect on caries of fissure sealing with a glass-ionomer and a resin-based sealant. 29.7:70-6.56:146-9. 32. Varma B. Aust Dent J 1997. 31. Riordan PJ. Bommana Halli. A double-blind clinical trial to determine the importance of pumice prophylaxis on fissure sealant retention. Beiruti N. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1995. 2000. 22. Hospital and Research Centre.24:393-414.23:282-5. J Public Health Dent 1996. 23. Sealants and preventive restorations: Review of effectiveness and clinical changes for improvement.35]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal Retention of sealants 30. Messer LB. 26. Wilson AD. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature.27:77-82. February 01. J Cons Dent 2004. Ripa LW.55. Scand J Dent Res 1990. E-mail: drpriyapedo@yahoo.246. 28. Simonsen RJ. Lygidakis NA. 24. Yoshimura M. Deshpande A. Joseph T. McLean JW. Ball IA. Sealants revisited: An update of the effectiveness of pit-and-fissure sealants. Pediatr Dent 1999. Glass ionomer as fissure sealant: A critical review.20:85-92. Priya Subramaniam. Hosur Road. Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1994.29: 298-301. Subbareddy VV.21:429-31. Pediatr Dent 2002. Retention and caries preventive effects of a GIC and a resin-based fissure sealant. Mjör IA.jisppd. Pediatr Dent 1998. Shimokobe H. IP: 180. Scientific rationale for sealant use and technical aspects of application. Mejàre I.98:345-50. 25. 20. Morgan MV. Calache H.com 120 . Simonsen RJ. Komatsu H.com on Sunday. India. Comparative evaluation of glass ionomer and resin based fissure sealant using noninvasive and invasive techniques: A SEM and microleakage study. Shashikiran ND. A clinical comparison of visible light activated unfilled. Quintessence Publishing Co. 27. 34. Glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants: A clinical study. Cariespreventive effect of glass ionomer sealant reapplication: Study presents three-year results. 33. Gwinnett AJ. The retention of pit and fissure sealants placed in primary school children by Dental Health Services.165:283-6. 21. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2004. Caries Res 1993. 1988. Oulis KI. J Dent Educ 1984. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001. Poulsen S. The Oxford Dental College.September 2008 Reprint request to: Dr.