These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Retention Ability of a Glass Carbomer Pit and Fissure Sealant.
    Author: Beresescu L, Kovacs M, Vlasa A, Stoica AM, Benedek C, Pop M, Bungardean D, Eșian D.
    Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Feb 10; 19(4):. PubMed ID: 35206153.
    Abstract:
    UNLABELLED: Dental sealants are an excellent means to prevent pits and fissure decay. Currently, there are multiple commercially available sealant materials. The purpose of this study was to assess the retention of glass carbomer fissure sealant and the incidence of secondary caries over a period of 24 months in comparison with a resin-based sealant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 32 children in the study, with ages between six and eight years and an average age of 6.8 years old. For each child, we sealed four permanent molars (totaling 128 teeth). The study group was divided into sub-groups. Sub-group A was represented by 64 first permanent molars which underwent dental sealing procedures with composite resin-based fissure sealant, Helioseal F™, and sub-group B was represented by 64 first permanent molars which underwent dental sealing procedures with glass carbomer cement, GCP Glass Seal™. The sealants were assessed clinically at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. RESULTS: The 6-month follow-up evaluation showed no statistically significant differences between the two materials neither regarding sealant retention nor new carious lesions formation (p > 0.05). At the 12-month recall, 57 molars had good retention (89.06%) from sub-group A and 44 molars (68.75%) from sub-group B; there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0187) between the two treatment choices only regarding material retention. At the last recall after 2 years, sub-group A had a higher number of molars with perfect sealing (47-73.43%) and 8 molars (12.5%) with new caries lesions and sub-group B had 23 (35.93%) molars with perfect sealing and 15 molars (23.44%) with new caries lesions; there was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001) between the two treatment choices only regarding material retention. CONCLUSIONS: The glass carbomer retention is very inferior to the resin-based material. The glass carbomer sealant was effective in preventing new caries development, comparable with the conventional resin-based sealant.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]