Abstract
Pit and fissure sealants have been accepted as a caries preventive strategy and have a great effect on preventing dental caries on the pit and fissure surfaces of permanent molar teeth. The retention for resin-based sealant is better than for glass ionomer sealant, but the difference in caries prevention remains equivocal. The aim of this study was to compare the caries preventive effect and retention of a glass ionomer cement (GIC) and a resin-based sealant (RBS). GIC (n=61) or RBS (n=82) was applied on the occlusal surfaces of permanent first molars with Sticky Fissure in school children (n=108), mean age=9.50±1.57 (S. D.). All sealants were applied by two operators using standard procedures and were assessed at baseline and every 6 months thereafter. Assessment criteria were based upon the inefficient status rate (Sticky Fissure or dental caries) and on the occurrence of caries. After 2 years, the ineffective status rate was 23.2% on the RBS compared to 36.1% on the GIC (p<0.05, Wilcoxon's test). For the evaluation of material for sealing, logistic multiple regression analysis was performed. As dependent variables, inefficient status (yes=1, no^O) was used. As independent variables, age, sealant material (RBS=1, GIC=2), DMFT at baseline and jaw (upper=1, lower=2) were used. The inefficient status was associated with the sealant material (Odds ratio: 1.61, p=0.04), after adjusting for age, DMFT at baseline and jaw. In addition, there were a total of eight occurrence of caries, three (4.9%) in teeth sealed with GIC and five (6.1%) in teeth sealed with RBS. The difference in the percentage of the occurrence of caries between teeth sealed with RBS or GIC was not significant. In conclusion, there was no significant difference in caries prevention using GIC compared to RBS. However, there was significantly better retention with RBS.
