A 48-month clinical evaluation of fissure sealants placed with different adhesive systems
MetadataShow full item record
Aim: To compare the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 48 months. Materials and Methods: The authors enrolled 244 teeth, each with no restoration or sealantCand no detectable caries, from 16 patients. The sealants were placed with Solobond M twostep etch-and-rinse adhesive or Futurabond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = completely retained, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. The Pearson v2 test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period. Results: The retention rates for sealants in the Solobond M group were significantly higher than those in the Futurabond NR group in all periods of evaluation (p,0.05). No statistically significant difference between the retention rates for premolars and molars was found at each evaluation period (p.0.05). There was no new caries formation throughout the 48-month recall period. Conclusion: Fissure sealants placed with etchand- rinse adhesive showed better retention rates than those placed with self-etch adhesive.