Comparative Evaluation of Three Different Pit and Fissure Sealants

Introduction: Dental caries is an infectious mulifactorial disease which can affect any tooth in the oral cavity. As such it is important to protect them from becoming carious. Resin sealant methods developed by Bowen in 1962 still continue to form the basis of presently available sealants. An important factor for sealant success is its marginal integrity and retention. Hence this study was undertaken to assess the retention and marginal discoloration of conventional pit and fissure sealants, Glass ionomer sealant type VII and Helioseal-F. Study aimed to assess the retention and marginal discoloration of conventional pit and fissure sealants, glass ionomer sealant type VII and helioseal -F. Material and methods: This study was conducted in a private dental clinic in Bangalore from 2015 to 2016. Thirty children aged 6 to 8 years were selected. The children were divided into 3 groups of 10 children each. First group, ortho Phosphoric acid etchant gel was applied with a disposable nylon applicator tip on to the pit and fissures. Conventional light-cured resinbased pit-and-fissure sealant (ClinproTM Sealant (3M ESPE) was cured with the light curing unit for 20 seconds. Second group (Group II): Fuji VII cement was mixed according to manufacturer’s instructions and applied to the occlusal surface using a plastic-filling instrument and a disposable nylon brush to spread it into the pits and fissures. Third Group (Group III): Etching was done with 37% phosphoric acid for 20 seconds. Using the syringe needle tip, Helioseal F sealant was flowed into the fissures for 20 seconds. First follow up examination was done at 3 months recall by using visual and tactile examination. The sealants were examined for their integrity, retention and marginal discoloration. The data was obtained at 3 months and 6 months intervals. The teeth were visually inspected for caries. Results: At 3-month evaluation 89.7% of retention was seen for conventional resin sealant, 72.7% retention for Helioseal F and 65.3% for Glass ionomer sealant. At 6month follow up 73.3% retention was seen for conventional resin sealant, 52.4% retention for Helioseal F and 34.9% for Glass ionomer sealant. There was no significant difference in terms of marginal discoloration between conventional resin sealant and helioseal F. However glass ionomer sealant showed a significant marginal discoloration as compared to helioseal F. No significant differe-nce was seen in the development of caries between the three groups. Conclusion: Conventional sealants are better sealants with respect to retention.