Objective: To test the hypothesis that glass-ionomer sealants (T) can provide effective bonding on a saliva-contaminated enamel surface, compared to resin-based systems (D) and therefore provide surface protection for pit and fissures on newly erupting first molars. Methods: Thirty-nine patients, 5-9 years of age, having bilateral partially erupted first molars (free of restorations, caries, hypoplasia, fracture or cracks) were selected following IRB approval. Eligible molars were examined via Diagnodent, and readings over 20 excluded. Delton Plus FS (D) was placed after etching and the application of Prime&Bond NT in one quadrant, and GC Fuji Triage (T) was placed after Cavity Conditioner in the other quadrant of the same patient. Only cotton-rolls were used for isolation. Quadrants were randomly assigned. Retention was calculated as percentage at 2-year recall. Nested multinomial regression was used to analyze the change in types of retention (baseline to two-years) between the two sealants. Results: 26 patients were present for the recall (66.6%). 92.3% of the sealants were partially retained in both of the sealant groups. Two sealants from each of the groups (7.7%) were completely lost. No statistical difference was found between the two sealant materials in terms of retention. However, demineralization and eventual restoration was observed on surfaces previously covered with Group D.
| T
| D
|
Fully-retained
| 0
| 0
|
Partially-retained
| 24
| 24
|
Lost
| 2
| 2*
|
Total
| 26
| 26
|
*Teeth had caries and eventually restored.
Conclusion: Groups T and D showed similar retention pattern at 2-year recall. However, lack of decalcification on Group T suggests the benefit of fluoride release and potential hardening of enamel surface with newly erupting molars. On the other hand, teeth loosing sealants from Group D resulted with irreversible decalcification. GC America supported this study.