Cargando…

Sealants revisited: An efficacy battle between the two major types of sealants – A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is comparing the retention and caries preventive effect of the glass-ionomer fissure sealant and resin-based fissure sealant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized-controlled split-mouth study was conducted to compare the retention and the caries preventive effect of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prathibha, B., Reddy, P. Parthasarthi, Anjum, Md. Shakeel, Monica, M., Praveen, B. H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6340219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30745917
_version_ 1783388762622918656
author Prathibha, B.
Reddy, P. Parthasarthi
Anjum, Md. Shakeel
Monica, M.
Praveen, B. H.
author_facet Prathibha, B.
Reddy, P. Parthasarthi
Anjum, Md. Shakeel
Monica, M.
Praveen, B. H.
author_sort Prathibha, B.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is comparing the retention and caries preventive effect of the glass-ionomer fissure sealant and resin-based fissure sealant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized-controlled split-mouth study was conducted to compare the retention and the caries preventive effect of light-cured resin-based sealant (3M ESPE) and glass ionomer sealant (Fuji VII). The sealants were applied to either the right or the left lower mandibular molars (7-9 yrs of age) in 120 school children, based on the randomization process. They were recalled for assessment of clinical retention at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months. The caries-preventive effect between the two materials was tested statistically by the McNemar's test for matched pairs, and the differences observed with regard to the retention of the materials was tested by Chi-square tests. The level of significance was set to be at P < 0.05. RESULTS: At the end of 12(th) month, sealant retention is found to be higher in the resin-based sealant group compared to the glass ionomer group. In the glass ionomer sealants placed, 101 (91%) were caries-free and 10 (9%) had caries. In the resin-based sealant, 105 (94.60%) had sound teeth and 6 (5.4%) had dental caries (P = 0.34). CONCLUSION: The glass ionomer sealant was less retentive when compared to resin sealants. The caries incidence between the glass ionomer and resin-based sealants was not statistically significant.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6340219
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63402192019-02-11 Sealants revisited: An efficacy battle between the two major types of sealants – A randomized controlled clinical trial Prathibha, B. Reddy, P. Parthasarthi Anjum, Md. Shakeel Monica, M. Praveen, B. H. Dent Res J (Isfahan) Original Article BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is comparing the retention and caries preventive effect of the glass-ionomer fissure sealant and resin-based fissure sealant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized-controlled split-mouth study was conducted to compare the retention and the caries preventive effect of light-cured resin-based sealant (3M ESPE) and glass ionomer sealant (Fuji VII). The sealants were applied to either the right or the left lower mandibular molars (7-9 yrs of age) in 120 school children, based on the randomization process. They were recalled for assessment of clinical retention at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months. The caries-preventive effect between the two materials was tested statistically by the McNemar's test for matched pairs, and the differences observed with regard to the retention of the materials was tested by Chi-square tests. The level of significance was set to be at P < 0.05. RESULTS: At the end of 12(th) month, sealant retention is found to be higher in the resin-based sealant group compared to the glass ionomer group. In the glass ionomer sealants placed, 101 (91%) were caries-free and 10 (9%) had caries. In the resin-based sealant, 105 (94.60%) had sound teeth and 6 (5.4%) had dental caries (P = 0.34). CONCLUSION: The glass ionomer sealant was less retentive when compared to resin sealants. The caries incidence between the glass ionomer and resin-based sealants was not statistically significant. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6340219/ /pubmed/30745917 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Dental Research Journal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Prathibha, B.
Reddy, P. Parthasarthi
Anjum, Md. Shakeel
Monica, M.
Praveen, B. H.
Sealants revisited: An efficacy battle between the two major types of sealants – A randomized controlled clinical trial
title Sealants revisited: An efficacy battle between the two major types of sealants – A randomized controlled clinical trial
title_full Sealants revisited: An efficacy battle between the two major types of sealants – A randomized controlled clinical trial
title_fullStr Sealants revisited: An efficacy battle between the two major types of sealants – A randomized controlled clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Sealants revisited: An efficacy battle between the two major types of sealants – A randomized controlled clinical trial
title_short Sealants revisited: An efficacy battle between the two major types of sealants – A randomized controlled clinical trial
title_sort sealants revisited: an efficacy battle between the two major types of sealants – a randomized controlled clinical trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6340219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30745917
work_keys_str_mv AT prathibhab sealantsrevisitedanefficacybattlebetweenthetwomajortypesofsealantsarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT reddypparthasarthi sealantsrevisitedanefficacybattlebetweenthetwomajortypesofsealantsarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT anjummdshakeel sealantsrevisitedanefficacybattlebetweenthetwomajortypesofsealantsarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT monicam sealantsrevisitedanefficacybattlebetweenthetwomajortypesofsealantsarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT praveenbh sealantsrevisitedanefficacybattlebetweenthetwomajortypesofsealantsarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial