Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the effectiveness of two pit and fissure sealants (PFS) in reducing the incidence of dental caries in schoolchildren.
Material and Methods
A randomized split-mouth experimental design was used in a sample of 140 subjects assigned to two groups. The sealants used were Clinpro©3M and BeautiSealant©Shofu placed in first permanent molars (FPMs). Each sealant was compared to molars in the controls to determine effectiveness over a period of 6 months. The study had a 12.9% loss to follow-up. No statistically significant differences (p>0.05) were observed for sex, age, baseline dmft, or type of sealants. Nonparametric tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results
Average dmft index at baseline was 4.10±3.16. Lower incidence of caries was observed in FPMs with pit and fissure sealants (p<0.01), regardless of the type used. When sealants remained intact there was a lower caries incidence compared to sealants partially or completely missing – but differences were only significant for FPM 16. Caries incidence was higher for BeautiSealant sealed teeth than for Clinpro’s, but only statistically significant in FPMs 16, 36 and 46 (p< 0.05). Caries incidence was higher in those cases with a higher baseline dmft but it only reached statistical significance in FPMs 26 and 36. Relative risks for dental caries were lower in sealed teeth (p<0.01).
Conclusions
Pit and fissures sealants are an effective preventive treatment to reduce caries during a 6-month follow-up in schoolchildren 6 to 8 years of age, regardless of the type of sealant used. The sealant brand that showed greater effectiveness in terms of prevention and retention was Clinpro©3M.
Keywords: MeSH terms: Pit and Fissure Sealants, Dental Caries, Child
Author keywords: Pit and Fissure Sealants, Oral Health, Caries
Introduction
According to the Global Burden of Disease in 2010, untreated caries in permanent and primary teeth represented the first and tenth most prevalent condition, respectively (1). In Latin America, oral diseases constitute a public health problem (2). Specifically, in Mexico six-year olds have caries on their primary teeth, with caries index ranging from 0.73 to 5.35 (decayed, missing and filled primary teeth (dmft index)), and caries prevalence is between 26.3% and 77.5%. For permanent teeth, dental caries index among 12-year olds ranged from 0.52 to 3.67 (Decayed, Missing and Filled Permanent Teeth (DMFT index)) and caries prevalence ranged between 30.7% and 79.2% (3). For 15-year-olds, the average DMFT ranged between 1.12 and 5.31, and prevalence between 37.6% and 88.6% (3). The results of the studies conducted in developing countries revealed that more than 80% of caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth required restorative treatment. The high prevalence and treatment needs represent an economic burden for both public health systems and households, with the latter often paying out-of-pocket expenses for private care (4, 5).
First permanent molars (FPMs) are the earliest teeth to erupt in the secondary dentition (6). The occlusal morphology of pit and fissures is an important reason for dental caries at this surface. While diverse restorative materials can be used to restore occlusal cavities (7), pit and fissure sealants are highly effective preventive interventions whereby a low-viscosity resin is placed in pits and fissures (8-10). In Mexico, less than 2.5% of children and adolescents aged 6 - 12-years had sealants of any type (11).
The present study set out to ascertain the effectiveness of sealants in general in a group of community-dwelling children in terms of caries prevention performance in first permanent molars (FPM). Secondly, we compared the performance of two commonly used sealants: ClinPro©3M and BeautiSealant©Shofu pit and fissure sealants.
Material and methods
Design
We conducted a randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial in elementary school children in Hidalgo, Mexico. Figure 1 shows the methodological design. Our design included the conventional Clinpro sealant (Clinpro©3M, Saint Paul, MN., USA) and one sealant based on Giomer technology (BeautiSealant©Shofu, Kyoto, Japan). Clinpro©3M is a resin-based product that requires an etching adhesive system (12). BeautiSealant©Shofu sealant uses Giomer technology with an adhesive system that does not require phosphoric acid (13). Different technologies may affect various aspects of performance (e.g., pit penetration (14), retention (15) and microfiltration (16), which was not individually addressed in the present research.
Our research protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Health Sciences Institute at the Autonomous University of the State of Hidalgo (Cinv/o/032/2016).
Sealant application
Dental prophylaxis with fluoride-free abrasive paste and rubber cup was carried out at low speed. Relative isolation was attained with cotton rolls. A conventional adhesive system was followed with the Clinpro sealant; that is, the enamel surface was etched for 20 seconds, and after rinsing with plenty of water, the sealant was placed with applicator tips (3MESPE). For the BeautiSealant sealant, first conditioning was attained with air gently applied for 5 seconds, followed by placing the sealant (Shofu). Both products were cured with a LED lamp for 20 seconds. We followed the manufacturers’ instructions.
Study sample and participant selection
A formula for proportional difference was used to calculate the sample size. The prevalence of caries in the FPMs with and without sealants (30% and 60%, respectively) was based on a p-value of 0.05 and 90% power. We added 10% loss to follow-up calculations, leading to 70 participants per sealant.
We selected the participants randomly from ten public elementary schools after holding a meeting with heads of households in each school, before asking for their signed informed consent. Inclusion criteria were (1) having four fully erupted and sound FPMs; (2) being enrolled in one of the ten selected schools; (3) being between six and eight years old; (4) having no fixed orthodontic appliances; and (5 the child assenting to go through dental examination.
Intervention
Once participants were selected, we performed an initial randomization to determine which sealant would be used for each child. We then performed the second randomization to determine on which side of the mouth the sealant would be placed. Sealants (experimental group) were applied in the first upper permanent molar and first lower permanent molar on the same side of the mouth. In this way, the control group was assigned to the opposite arch.
Data collection and statistical analysis
We used the International Caries Detection and Assessment System II (ICDAS II) to measure caries experience at baseline and follow-up (six months after intervention); dmft index was used at baseline as well. Both the clinical examiner and recorder were calibrated and standardized (kappa >0.80) on this scale. As recommended by other authors (17), we assessed pit and fissure sealants during follow-up as 0=intact or complete, 1=partial retention, or 2=missing.
After describing general characteristics of the sample, we performed a bivariate analysis to ascertain whether differences had arisen between the two groups of participants in terms of loss to follow-up, and for each of the independent variables. We performed a chi square test to establish the association between dependent and exposure variables. Finally, we estimated the relative risk (RR) and the incidence of caries in the FPMs with and without a sealant. Given the split-mouth design of our study, the tooth was analyzed so that a comparison could be made with the contralateral tooth.
Variables
Our dependent variable was the incidence of caries, measured dichotomously (0= sound, 1= visible changes in enamel or caries >1 in ICDAS II). Our main independent variable was the presence of sealant (0= without sealant, 1= with sealant). In addition, we analyzed data by sex (0=male, 1= female), age (6-8 years), baseline dmft, type of sealant (0=Clinpro, 1= BeautiSealant) and sealant status six months after placement (0=intact, 1= partial retention, 2= missing).
Blinding
The simple blind design was used; i.e., participants were unaware of group assignment, but researchers were aware of it. Similarly, both clinicians and patients knew that the treatment would be provided, but patients did not know which type of sealant would be applied. The dentists placing the sealants were different from those scoring the caries experience, the presence of sealants, or collecting data for the trial.
Results
Table 1 shows the general sample and demographic characteristics. Of 140 participants, mean of age was 6.92±0.74 years; 52.1% were boys. Mean baseline dmft index was 4.10±3.16. Although the study had a 12.9% loss to follow-up, no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) were observed for sex, age, baseline dmft nor type of sealants between children who left the study and those who completed the follow-up.
Table 1. General sample characteristics at baseline and analysis of participants who remained and did not remain (loss to follow-up) in the study.
Variable |
Baseline measurement n (%) |
Lost to follow up 18 (12.9) |
Remained in study 122 (87.1) |
P value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sex Male Female |
73 (52.1) 67 (47.9) |
11 (15.1) 7 (10.4) |
62 (84.9) 60 (89.6) |
p=0.415 * | |
Type of sealant Beautisealant Clintpro |
70 (50.0) 70 (50.0) |
11 (8.4) 10 (14.3) |
62 (88.6) 60 (85.7) |
p=0.614* | |
Mean±SD | Range | Mean±SD | Mean±SD | ||
Age | 6.92±0.74 | 6-8 | 6.66±0.68 | 6.96±.74 | p= 0.1117** |
Baseline dmft | 4.10±3.16 | 0-13 | 4.33±3.49 | 4.06±3.12 | p=0.8095 ** |
*Chi2 **Man-Withney
There were no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) in caries incidence in FPMs by age or sex. A lower caries incidence was observed in FPMs with pit and fissure sealants (p<0.01) (Tables 2 and 3), regardless of the type used.
Table 2. Caries incidence in FPM16 and FPM26 vs independent variables.
FPM16 | Sound | Decayed | P value |
---|---|---|---|
Presence of sealant With sealant Without sealant |
43 (74.1) 32 (50.0) |
15 (25.9) 32 (50.0) |
p=0.006* |
Sealant status Intact Partial Missing |
36 (81.8) 28 (60.9) 11 (34.4) |
8 (18.2) 18 (39.1) 21 (65.6) |
p<0.0001* |
Type of sealant Clinpro BeautiSealant |
45 (75.0) 30 (48.4) |
15 (25.0) 32 (51.6) |
p=0.003* |
Sex Male Female |
38 (61.3) 37 (61.7) |
24 (38.6) 23 (38.3) |
p=0.966* |
Age | 6.89±0.70 | 7.08±0.80 | p=0.1757** |
Baseline dmft | 3.74±3.08 | 4.57±3.15 | p= 0.1336** |
FPM26 | |||
Presence of sealant With sealant Without sealant |
51 (79.7) 17 (29.3) |
13 (20.3) 41 (70.7) |
p<0.0001* |
Sealant status Intact Partial Missing |
28 (63.6) 27 (58.7) 13 (40.6) |
16 (36.4) 19 (41.3) 19 (59.4) |
p=0.120* |
Type of sealant Clinpro BeautiSealant |
36 (60.0) 32 (51.6) |
24 (40.0) 30 (48.4) |
p=0.351* |
Sex Male Female |
32 (51.6) 36 (60.0) |
30 (48.4) 24 (40.0) |
p=0.351* |
Age | 6.97±0.71 | 6.96±0.80 | p=0.9383** |
Baseline dmft | 3.52±2.76 | 4.74±3.44 | p=0.0489** |
*Chi2; **Man-Withney; FPM = first permanent molar
Table 3. Caries incidence in FPM36 and FPM46 vs independent variables.
FPM36 | Sound | Decayed | P value |
---|---|---|---|
Presence of sealant With sealant Without sealant |
50 (78.1) 21 (36.2) |
14 (21.9) 37 (63.8) |
p<0.0001* |
Sealant status Intact Partial Missing |
27 (61.4) 30 (65.2) 14 (43.7) |
17 (38.6) 16 (34.8) 18 (56.3) |
p=0.145* |
Type of sealant Clinpro BeautiSelant |
41 (68.3) 30 (48.4) |
19 (31.7) 32 (51.6) |
p=0.026* |
Sex Male Female |
37 (59.7) 34 (56.7) |
25 (40.3) 26 (43.3) |
p=0.736* |
Age | 6.92 ± .72 | 7.01 ± .78 | p=0.5221** |
Baseline dmft | 3.33 ± 2.49 | 5.07 ± 3.62 | p=0.0094** |
FPM46 | |||
Presence of sealant With sealant Without sealant |
43 (74.1) 27 (42.2) |
15 (25.9) 37 (57.8) |
p<0.0001* |
Sealant status Intact Partial Missing |
28 (63.6) 27 (58.7) 15 (46.9) |
16 (36.4) 19 (41.3) 17 (53.1) |
p=0.336* |
Type of sealant Clinpro BeautiSealant |
41 (68.3) 29 (46.8) |
19 (31.7) 33 (53.2) |
p=0.016* |
Sex Male Female |
38 (61.3) 32 (53.3) |
24 (38.7) 28 (46.7) |
p=0.314* |
Age | 6.87 ± .74 | 7.09 ± .74 | p=0.1015** |
Baseline dmft | 3.71 ± 3.11 | 4.53 ± 3.1 | p=0.1147** |
*Chi2; **Man-Withney; FPM = first permanent molar
When sealants remained intact there was a lower caries incidence compared to sealants partially or completely missing – but differences were only significant for FPM 16. The caries incidence was higher for BeautiSealant sealed teeth than Clinpro’s, but it was only statistically significant in FPMs 16, 36 and 46 (p< 0.05). The caries incidence was higher in those cases with a higher baseline dmft but it only reached statistical significance in FPMs 26 and 36.
Table 4 shows the incidence distribution by ICDAS II type of lesion. They were primarily ICDAS 1 and 2; 63.8% of 47 FPM 16, 77.7% of 54 FPM 26, 54.9% of 51 FPM 36 and 48.0% of FPM 46.
Table 4. Caries incidence by type of lesion according to ICDAS II.
FPM16 | Sound | ICDAS 1 and 2 | ICDAS 3 | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Presence of sealant With sealant Without sealant |
43 (74.1) 32 (50.0) |
9 (15.5) 21 (32.8) |
6 (10.4) 11 (17.2) |
p=0.022* |
FPM26 | ||||
Presence of sealant With sealant Without sealant |
51 (79.7) 17 (29.3) |
10 (15.6) 32 (55.2) |
3 (4.7) 9 (15.5) |
p<0.0001* |
FPM36 | ||||
Presence of sealant With sealant Without sealant |
50 (78.1) 21 (36.2) |
10 (15.6) 18 (31.0) |
4 (6.3) 19 (32.8) |
p<0.0001* |
FPM46 | ||||
Presence of sealant With sealant Without sealant |
43 (74.1) 27 (42.2) |
9 (15.5) 16 (25.0) |
6 (10.4) 21 (32.8) |
p=0.001* |
* Chi square
The caries incidence in sealed and non-sealed FPMs is presented in Table 5. In terms of relative risk (RR), FPMs with pit and fissure sealants had lower caries risk of than those without sealants.
Table 5. Caries incidence and relative risk in teeth with sealant.
IR - exposed | IR - non-exposed | CI | RR | CI 95% | P value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FPM16 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 38.5 | 0.52 | 0.52 - 0.85 | p=0.0062 |
FPM26 | 20.0 | 70.0 | 42.2 | 0.29 | 0.17 - 0.48 | p<0.0001 |
FPM36 | 21.8 | 63.7 | 41.8 | 0.34 | 0.21 - 0.57 | p<0.0001 |
FPM46 | 25.8 | 57.8 | 42.6 | 0.45 | 0.27 - 0.72 | p=0.0004 |
IR= Incidence rate; CI= Cumulative incidence; RR= Relative risk
Discussion
Our study demonstrated that pit and fissure sealants are effective for a six-month follow-up period when applied to first permanent molars (FPMs). This is consistent with previous studies in various countries (18, 19), although the follow-up times differ. While widely acknowledged for effectiveness, it is a pity that in Mexico pit and fissure sealants are not employed as often as it could be expected. According to a report from the Ministry of Health, less than 2.5% of the population surveyed had received sealants (11). Given demonstrated effectiveness, health programs should be emphasizing sealant utilization in public and private dental services, as it has often been recommended in other countries (18, 19).
Caries lesions are predictive of new ones (20); a previous history of caries experience suggests an increased risk (21). Pit and fissure sealants are especially indicated for children at risk of developing caries. When we analyzed the relationship between the initial appearance of caries in primary dentition and the incidence of caries in sealed teeth, we found higher incidence of caries in patients with greater dmft at baseline. Despite our limited follow-up time, overall results strongly support the use of sealants (15, 17-19).
The BeautiSelant©Shofu sealant utilizes glass ionomer together with a polymer in its composition, which offers the advantage of releasing and recharging fluoride. Recent studies have compared this type of technology to conventional sealants with favorable results (22, 23). Cinpro©3M is a resin-based sealant that releases fluoride. It has been suggested that this type of sealant provides greater benefits as it tends to remain longer in the mouth (24): resin-based sealants offer extended retention as a result of the adhesive system used (25). Our study results showed a smaller number of missing sealants and a lower level of caries in FPMs when Clinpro©3M sealants had been used. The effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants is closely related to their permanence on the tooth surface (26-28). However, we found no differences in terms of the incidence of caries in relation to retention. Our study differed from others because our follow-up measurement was limited to six months; the effect of total or partial loss of sealants may have been more evident over a longer period.
While selection criteria included four first permanent molars in good shape, such condition may have not ensured good overall dental health status; primary teeth could have had caries. In Table 1, we had dmft 4.10±3.16, which is considerable. Through resorting to ICDAS II, we were able to identify enamel changes, from minimal color changes indicating demineralization (ICDAS 1 and 2) to carious lesions encompassing small cavities as well as extensive enamel breakdown (ICDAS>2). Most lesions scored were ICDAS 1 and 2, a few ICDAS 3, and none above ICDAS 3.
Pit and fissure sealants can be an effective tool to prevent dental caries and thus help improve oral health of the child population. Our research findings support sealant utilization in one of the prime age groups who can benefit from such a caries prevention approach (7-10, 14-19, 28-30).
Conclusions
Pit and fissure sealants offer an effective preventive treatment for reducing the incidence of caries over a six-month follow-up period in six to eight years old schoolchildren, regardless of either one of two types of sealants used. In our study, the sealant that proved to be most effective in terms of prevention and retention was Clinpro©3M.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by a scholarship awarded by the National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico (CONACYT) to MAFB.
Footnotes
Competing financial interests
The authors state that there are no actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The authors received no product support or any kind of financial support from the manufacturers of the sealants.
References
- 1.Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJL, Marcenes W. Global burden of untreated caries: a systematic review and metaregression. J Dent Res. 2015. May;94(5):650–8. 10.1177/0022034515573272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Martins-Paiva S, Álvarez-Vidigal E, Abanto J, Cabrera-Matta A, López-Robles RA, Masoli C, et al. Epidemiology of dental caries in Latin America. Revista de Odontopediatría Latinoamericana 2014; 4(2). Available from: https://www.revistaodontopediatria.org/ediciones/2014/2/art-4/.
- 3.MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. Ministry of Health. National Caries Survey 2001. Centro Nacional de Vigilancia Epidemiológica y Control de Enfermedades. México DF; 2006. Available from: https://www.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2009/OralHealthPart3.pdf.
- 4.Medina-Solís CE, Ávila-Burgos L, Márquez-Corona ML, Medina-Solís JJ, Lucas-Rincón SE, Borges-Yañez SA, et al. Out-of-pocket expenditures on dental care for schoolchildren aged 6 to 12 years: A cross-sectional estimate in a less-developed country setting. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019. June 5;16(11):1997. 10.3390/ijerph16111997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Medina-Solís CE, Ávila-Burgos L, Borges-Yañez SA, Irigoyen-Camacho ME, Sánchez-Pérez L, Zepeda-Zepeda MA, et al. Ecological study on needs and cost of treatment for dental caries in schoolchildren aged 6, 12 and 15 years: Data from a national survey in Mexico. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020. February;99(7):e19092. 10.1097/MD.0000000000019092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Pontigo-Loyola AP, Márquez-Corona ML, Minaya-Sánchez M, Lucas-Rincón SE, Casanova-Rosado JF, Robles-Minaya JL, et al. Correlation between the caries status of the first permanent molars and the overall DMFT Index: a cross-sectional study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020. January;99(5):e19061. 10.1097/MD.0000000000019061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Oz FD, Ergin E, Cakir FY, Gurgan S. Clinical Evaluation of a Self-Adhering Flowable Resin Composite in Minimally Invasive Class I Cavities: 5-year Results of a Double Blind Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2020. March;54(1):10–21. 10.15644/asc54/1/2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Colombo S, Paglia L. Dental Sealants. Part 1: Prevention First. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2018. March;19(1):80–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hatibović-Kofman S, El-Kassem M, Inocencio F, Selimovic M, Raimundo L. Evidence Based Effectiveness of Pit and Fissure Sealants Applied by Students and Paediatric Dentists After Five Years. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2008;42:218–28. [Google Scholar]
- 10.San Martin L, Castaño A, Bravo M, Tavares M, Niederman R, Oqumbodede EO. Dental sealant knowledge, opinion, values and practice of Spanish dentists. BMC Oral Health. 2013. February 8;13:12. 10.1186/1472-6831-13-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. Ministry of Health. Epidemiological Surveillance System of Oral Pathologies 10 years monitoring the oral health of Mexicans. 2018. Available from: http://www.epidemiologia.salud.gob.mx/doctos/infoepid/bol_sivepab/SIVEPAB_10moaniv.pdf accessed January 23 2019.
- 12.MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. 3M ESPE. Clinpro Sellador Nueva tecnología del cambio de color. 2018. [cited August 20 2018]Available from: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/140559O/3mtm-espetm-clinprotm-sealant.pdf
- 13.MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. Shofu. BeautiSealant Fluoride Realasing Pit & Fissure Sealant System. [cited August 20 2018]Available from: https://www.shofu.com/shofu_images/Literature/beautisealant%20brochure.pdf
- 14.Kantovitz KR, Moreira KM, Pascon FM, Nociti FH, Jr, Machado Tabchoury CP, Puppin-Rontani RM. Penetration of Filled and Unfilled Resin Sealants on Different Enamel substrates. Pediatr Dent. 2016. November 15;38(7):472–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Bhushan U, Goswami M. Evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealants placed with and without air abrasion pretreatment in 6-8 year old children - An in vivo study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017. February 1;9(2):e211–7. 10.4317/jced.53259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Paryab M. Sealant microleakage after using nano-filled bonding agents on saliva-contaminated enamel. J Dent (Tehran). 2013. May;10(3):227–32. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yaman BC, Ozel S, Yucel T, Yıldız E. Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant: a 24-month split-mouth, randomized, and controlled study. J Dent. 2014. February;42(2):149–57. 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.11.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Griffin SO, Naavaal S, Scherrer C, Patel M, Chattopadhyay S, Community Preventive Services Task Force . Evaluation of School-Based Dental Sealant Programs: An Updated Community Guide Systematic Economic Review. Am J Prev Med. 2017. March;52(3):407–15. 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Williams R, Rogo EJ, Gurenlian JR, Portillo KM. An evaluation of a school-based dental sealant programme. Int J Dent Hyg. 2018. May;16(2):e65–72. 10.1111/idh.12303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Guedes RS, Piovesan C, Ardenghi TM, Emmanuelli B, Braga MM, Mendes FM. Presence of Initial Caries Lesions as a Risk Factor for Caries in Preschool Children: A Cohort Study. Caries Res. 2018;52(1-2):32–41. 10.1159/000479824 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Vallejos-Sánchez AA, Medina-Solís CE, Casanova-Rosado JF, Maupomé G, Minaya-Sánchez M, Pérez-Olivares S. Caries increment in the permanent dentition of Mexican children in relation to prior caries experience on permanent and primary dentitions. J Dent. 2006. October;34(9):709–15. 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ikemura K, Tay FR, Endo T, Pashley DH. A review of chemical-approach and ultramorphological studies on the development of fluoride-releasing dental adhesives comprising new pre-reacted glass ionomer (PRG) fillers. Dent Mater J. 2008. May;27(3):315–39. 10.4012/dmj.27.315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Dionysopoulos D, Sfeikos T, Tolidis K. Fluoride release and recharging ability of new dental sealants. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2016. February;17(1):45–51. 10.1007/s40368-015-0200-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Ushimura S, Nakamura K, Matsuda Y, Minamikawa H, Abe S, Yawaka Y. Assessment of the inhibitory effects of fissure sealants on the demineralization of primary teeth using an automatic pH-cycling system. Dent Mater J. 2016;35(2):316–24. 10.4012/dmj.2015-297 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Caries-Preventive Effect of High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer and Resin-Based Fissure Sealants on Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials. PLoS One. 2016. January 22;11(1):e0146512. 10.1371/journal.pone.0146512 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Deery C, Fyffe HE, Nugent ZJ, Nuttall NM, Pitts NB. A proposed method for assessing the quality of sealants--the CCC Sealant Evaluation System. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001. April;29(2):83–91. 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2001.290202.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Tianviwat S, Chongsuvivatwong V, Sirisakulveroj B. Loss of sealant retention and subsequent caries development. Community Dent Health. 2008. December;25(4):216–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Horuztepe SA, Ergin E, Onen A, Gürgan S. Comparison of Resin Infiltration Technique with Conventional Preventive Applications on Occlusal Fissures: EDS and SEM Analyses. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2020;54(4):382–91. 10.15644/asc54/4/5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Fernández-Barrera MA, Lara-Carrillo E, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Pontigo-Loyola AP, Ávila-Burgos L, Casanova-Rosado JF, et al. Study protocol of the cost-effectiveness comparison of two preventive methods in the incidence of caries: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019. July;98(30):e16634. 10.1097/MD.0000000000016634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Garcia IM, Rodrigues SB, Leitune VCB, Collares FM. Antibacterial, chemical and physical properties of sealants with polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride. Braz Oral Res. 2019. March 18;33:e019. 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]