This study confirms the likelihood that remnants of high-viscosity glass-ionomer sealant material are retained and block the deeper parts of pits and fissures even after the sealant appears to have disappeared clinical ly , exercising their carious lesion preventive effect
OBJECTIVES Resin composite sealants are retained longer than low-viscosity glass-ionomer sealants .
Nevertheless , a systematic review showed that there is no evidence that resin composite sealants are superior to low-viscosity glass-ionomers in preventing dentine carious lesion development .
This case study aim ed to investigate reasons for this .
Caries-Preventive Effect of a One-Time Application of Composite Resin and Glass Ionomer Sealants after 5 Years
The aim of the present trial was to ( 1 ) compare the caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer sealants , placed according to the atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) procedure , with composite resin sealants over time and ( 2 ) investigate the caries-preventive effect after complete disappearance of sealant material . Forty-six boys and 57 girls , mean age 7.8 years , were r and omly divided into two treatment groups in a parallel-group study design . A light-polymerized composite resin sealant material and a high-viscosity glass ionomer were each placed in 180 fully erupted first molars in their respective treatment groups . Evaluation took place annually for 5 years by calibrated examiners . After 5 years , 86 % composite resin and 88 % glass ionomer sealants did not survive . Three categories of re-exposure periods for caries development in pits and fissures after complete loss of sealants were distinguished : 0–1 , 1–2 and 2–3 years . In the 2- to 3-year group , 13 and 3 % of pits and fissures previously sealed with composite resin and glass ionomer , respectively , were diagnosed as having developed a dentine lesion . The relative risks ( 95 % CI ) of dentine lesion development in surfaces sealed with glass ionomer compared to those sealed with composite resin after 3 , 4 and 5 years were 0.22 ( 0.06–0.82 ) , 0.32 ( 0.14–0.73 ) and 0.28 ( 0.13–0.61 ) , respectively . The relative risks of dentine lesion development in pits and fissures previously sealed with glass ionomer compared with composite resin over re-exposure periods of 1–2 and 2–3 years were 0.26 ( 0.14–0.48 ) and 0.25 ( 0.09–0.68 ) , respectively . We conclude that the caries-preventive effect of high-viscosity glass ionomer sealants , placed using the ART procedure , was between 3.1 and 4.5 times higher than that of composite resin sealants after 3–5 years . Furthermore , high-viscosity ( ART ) glass ionomer sealants appear to have a four times higher chance of preventing caries development in re-exposed pits and fissures of occlusal surfaces in first molars than light-cured composite resin sealant material over a 1- to 3-year period . A well- design ed clinical trial using different types of oral health personnel should be implemented to confirm these initial results
This study confirms the likelihood that remnants of high-viscosity glass-ionomer sealant material are retained and block the deeper parts of pits and fissures even after the sealant appears to have disappeared clinical ly , exercising their carious lesion preventive effect
OBJECTIVES Resin composite sealants are retained longer than low-viscosity glass-ionomer sealants .
Nevertheless , a systematic review showed that there is no evidence that resin composite sealants are superior to low-viscosity glass-ionomers in preventing dentine carious lesion development .
This case study aim ed to investigate reasons for this .