IADR Abstract Archives
Universal Bond Versus Conventional Bond: 18 Month Clinical Evaluation of Fissure Sealants
Objectives: This clinical study compared the retantion rates of a nanofilled fissure sealant placed with the use of universal bond with different modes compared with conventional etch&rinse system over 18 months.
Methods: One-hundred and forty-four sealants were placed on the permanent premolars and molars of 13 subjects who had no restorations or sealants present on the fissures and no detectable caries. The sealants were placed with either Adper Single Bond 2 two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or Single bond Universal adhesive with and without etching by one previously calibrated dentists, using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Fissurit FX, was applied and light-cured. Clinical evaluations were done at baseline and at 1 week, 6-, 12- and 18-month recalls. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants. Evaluation of the sealants on every follow-up visit involved visual examination with the aid of a dental explorer and an intra-oral mirror. Each sealant was evaluated with the following criteria: 1= completely retained; 2= partial loss; 3= total loss. The Pearson Chi-square test was used to evaluate differences in the retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period.
Results: At 18-month recall 98 sealants of 13 patients were completely retained. Complete retention rates were 97.7% for the Adper Single bond 2 group, 100% for the Single Bond Universal ER and 80% for the Single Bond Universal SE groups. Retention rates of Single Bond SE group were statistically different in all periods of evaluation (p<0.05). No new caries formation was detected during study period.
Conclusions: Fissure sealants placed with ER mode showed better retention rates than those placed with Single Bond SE mode.
Methods: One-hundred and forty-four sealants were placed on the permanent premolars and molars of 13 subjects who had no restorations or sealants present on the fissures and no detectable caries. The sealants were placed with either Adper Single Bond 2 two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or Single bond Universal adhesive with and without etching by one previously calibrated dentists, using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Fissurit FX, was applied and light-cured. Clinical evaluations were done at baseline and at 1 week, 6-, 12- and 18-month recalls. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants. Evaluation of the sealants on every follow-up visit involved visual examination with the aid of a dental explorer and an intra-oral mirror. Each sealant was evaluated with the following criteria: 1= completely retained; 2= partial loss; 3= total loss. The Pearson Chi-square test was used to evaluate differences in the retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period.
Results: At 18-month recall 98 sealants of 13 patients were completely retained. Complete retention rates were 97.7% for the Adper Single bond 2 group, 100% for the Single Bond Universal ER and 80% for the Single Bond Universal SE groups. Retention rates of Single Bond SE group were statistically different in all periods of evaluation (p<0.05). No new caries formation was detected during study period.
Conclusions: Fissure sealants placed with ER mode showed better retention rates than those placed with Single Bond SE mode.