IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical performance of fissure sealants placed with different adhesive systems
Objectives: To evaluate and compare the clinical retention of a resin-based fissure sealant placed with prior application of etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) adhesives.
Methods: 204 sealants were placed in 51 children with previously unsealed, caries-free permanent first molars, employing a split-mouth design. The teeth were randomized into four groups (n= 51 teeth/group) according to the adhesive system placed under the tested resin-based sealant (Delton FS+; Dentsply). Group 1 (Control arm): No bonding agent (conventional acid-etch sealant), Group 2: Prior enamel etch + ER adhesive (XP-Bond; Dentsply), Group 3: SE adhesive-only (Clearfil-SE-Bond;Kuraray) without prior etching, Group 4: Prior enamel etch + SE adhesive (Clearfil-SE-Bond). Clinical assessments were performed according to modified USPHS criteria at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 months. The data were analyzed statistically using Fisher’s Exact test, Kaplan-Meier analysis and Log-rank test.
Results: At 18 months, the conventional technique and SE-only group had similar cumulative survival rates (62% and 45%, respectively) for occlusal surfaces. XP-Bond and Clearfil-SE-Bond with prior etching showed similar (90% and 94%, respectively) and higher survival rates. The cumulative survival rates on palatal/buccal surfaces showed similar outcomes as with occlusal surfaces: XP-Bond (94%), Clearfil-SE-Bond + acid etch (96%), conventional sealant (54%) and Clearfil-SE-Bond-only (39%).
Conclusions: With prior enamel etching, the etch-and-rinse and self-etch groups showed similar and significiantly higher sealant retention rates. For the self-etch adhesive, prior enamel etching significantly increased sealant retention. The conventional technique outperformed the self-etch-only bonded sealants in the absence of statistical significance.
Methods: 204 sealants were placed in 51 children with previously unsealed, caries-free permanent first molars, employing a split-mouth design. The teeth were randomized into four groups (n= 51 teeth/group) according to the adhesive system placed under the tested resin-based sealant (Delton FS+; Dentsply). Group 1 (Control arm): No bonding agent (conventional acid-etch sealant), Group 2: Prior enamel etch + ER adhesive (XP-Bond; Dentsply), Group 3: SE adhesive-only (Clearfil-SE-Bond;Kuraray) without prior etching, Group 4: Prior enamel etch + SE adhesive (Clearfil-SE-Bond). Clinical assessments were performed according to modified USPHS criteria at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 months. The data were analyzed statistically using Fisher’s Exact test, Kaplan-Meier analysis and Log-rank test.
Results: At 18 months, the conventional technique and SE-only group had similar cumulative survival rates (62% and 45%, respectively) for occlusal surfaces. XP-Bond and Clearfil-SE-Bond with prior etching showed similar (90% and 94%, respectively) and higher survival rates. The cumulative survival rates on palatal/buccal surfaces showed similar outcomes as with occlusal surfaces: XP-Bond (94%), Clearfil-SE-Bond + acid etch (96%), conventional sealant (54%) and Clearfil-SE-Bond-only (39%).
Conclusions: With prior enamel etching, the etch-and-rinse and self-etch groups showed similar and significiantly higher sealant retention rates. For the self-etch adhesive, prior enamel etching significantly increased sealant retention. The conventional technique outperformed the self-etch-only bonded sealants in the absence of statistical significance.