Clinical Follow Up of a Fissure Sealant Placed With Different Adhesive Protocols: 2-Year Randomized Split Mouth Study

Overview

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention rates of a fissure sealant placed using different adhesive protocols over 24 months.Twenty-four subjects with no restoration and caries received fissure sealants (Clinpro™Sealant, 3M/ESPE) placed with different adhesive protocols. A total of 292 sealants (73 for each group) were placed. The sealants were placed as follows; a-without adhesive (acid-etch only), b-with an etch-and-rinse adhesive (SingleBondTM), c-with a self-etch adhesive (AdperTMEasyBond), d-with acid-etch+self-etch adhesive (AdperTMEasyBond) by two previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers. Two other calibrated examiners, independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1=completely retained, 2=partial loss, and 3=total loss. The Pearson χ2 test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants for each evaluation period.

Dental caries, which can be encountered by individuals throughout their lives, is one of the most chronic diseases worldwide. Researches have mainly been focusing on the prevention of tooth caries with the awareness of this fact. The use of fluorides as well as pit-and-fissure sealants are the most common preventive applications against caries progression.Modern adhesives combine conventional conditioning, priming and bonding steps (etch-and-rinse adhesives) together into one or two bottle (self-etch adhesives) to ease adhesive protocols. However, it is still suspicious whether modern self-etch adhesives have equal bonding capacity to the conventional etch-and-rinse systems. Therefore, clinical trials are necessary to evaluate long-term adhesive performance of self-etch adhesives compared to the conventional etch-and-rinse ones.