Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar-Apr;16(2):350-356.
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2578.

Clinical Evaluation of Retention of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Pit and Fissure Sealants in Permanent First Molars: An 18 Months Follow-up: Randomized Controlled Trial

Oma Gyati  1 , Mansi Jain  1 , Suma Sogi  1 , Prinka Shahi  1 , Priyanka Sharma  1 , Archana Ramesh  1
Affiliations

Clinical Evaluation of Retention of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Pit and Fissure Sealants in Permanent First Molars: An 18 Months Follow-up: Randomized Controlled Trial

Oma Gyati et al. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023 Mar-Apr.

Abstract

Introduction: Deep pits and fissures are more prone to caries development due to their complex morphological anatomy. Preventive measures, such as pit and fissure sealants, can help in the reduction of dental caries. Conventional sealants being hydrophobic in nature, require isolation. Sealants which are hydrophilic have been introduced as an alternative where isolation is difficult to achieve.

Aim: To compare and evaluate the retention and marginal integrity of hydrophilic pit and fissure sealant (Embrace WetBond) with hydrophobic pit and fissure sealant (Clinpro) in permanent first molars.

Materials and methods: Sealants were applied randomly using the split-mouth design technique on 80 permanent first molars in children aged between 6 and 9 years and evaluation was done at 3, 6, 9, and 18 months.

Results: The difference in retention rates between the groups was not significant using the Chi-squared test, though the WetBond group exhibited better results with 40% complete retention at the end of 18 months while in the Clinpro group, it was 37.50%. The marginal integrity in both the sealant groups was also found to be statistically insignificant. Caries incidence was found to be slightly higher in the Clinpro group.

Conclusion: The clinical performance of Embrace WetBond was better when compared to Clinpro because of its moisture-tolerance capacity. Embrace Wetbond pit and fissure sealant can be the choice of material in cases where moisture control is a challenging issue.

How to cite this article: Gyati O, Jain M, Sogi S, et al. Clinical Evaluation of Retention of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Pit and Fissure Sealants in Permanent First Molars: An 18 Months follow-up: Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023;16(2):350-356.

Keywords: Clinpro; Embrace WetBond; Permanent first molars; Pits and fissure sealants.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None

Figures

Figs 1A to F
Figs 1A to F
Showing procedures of Embrace WetBond and Clinpro Pit and fissure sealants
Figs 2A to D
Figs 2A to D
Showing follow-up visit of Embrace WetBond and Clinpro Pit and fissure sealants
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of retention between groups at different time intervals
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparison of marginal integrity between groups at different time intervals
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Comparison of ICDAS score between groups at different time intervals
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jain M, Chhabra C, Rana S, et al. Effect of school-based oral health awareness lecture on knowledge, attitude, and practice toward oral health among primary school teachers of Barara, Ambala, Haryana. World J Dentistry. 2021;12(4):322–327. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1842.
    1. Ripa LW, Leske GS, Sposato A. The surface-specific caries pattern of participants in a school-based fluoride mouthrinsing program with implications for the use of sealants. J Public Health Dent. 1985;45(2):90–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.1985.tb01944.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pushpalatha HM, Ravichandra KS, Srikanth K, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of different pit and fissure sealants in primary and permanent teeth - an in-vitro study. J Int Oral Health. 2014;6(2):84–89. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gawali PN, Chaugule VB, Panse AM. Comparison of microleakage and penetration depth between hydrophilic and hydrophobic sealants in primary second molar. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;9(4):291–295. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1380. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24(5):393–414. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources