Composite(COM) versus Glass-Ionomer(GIC) Sealants. A Two-Year Prospective Clinical Split-Mouth Study

Objective: To examine the two-year performance of COM and GIC sealants in children of underserved regions in India. Fillings were placed under primitive conditions (no air nor water syringe). For curing of COM sealant a battery operated light emitting diode (LED) curing unit was used. Methods: One operator placed a total of 196 sealants (98 COM, 98 GIC) in the first permanent molars of 64 children. For COM sealants (Cleanpro ^TM, 3M ESPE) the occlusal surfaces were cleaned and etched (15 seconds with phosphoric acid 35%). The etchant was removed with moist cotton pellets, dried with regular cotton pellets and followed by a sealant application (light cured for 40 seconds). For GIC sealants (Fuji VII, GC India) the occlusal surfaces were etched and dried like the COM sealants. The auto-cured GIC was applied followed by a surface varnish to prevent moisture influence on the setting. Immediately and after two years the same examiner assessed the modified Ryge criteria. Statistical analysis, ignoring the split mouth study design, used the general association nonparametric test of the Cochran-Mantel-Hänszel Statistics (SAS 9.1 proc freq). Results: For the categories marginal unregularities, marginal discoloration, marginal integrity, secondary caries and condition of filling, there was a clinically and statistically significant difference (p<0.001) between COM and GIC resulting in better COM sealants. Conclusion: The COM sealants showed superior performance to GIC sealants during a two year period. The battery-driven LED curing unit allows this superior material to be used in rural areas where electricity is not available. We thank 3M ESPE for the LED curing unit, and both companies for the materials.