Comparison of Retention of Self-Etch Sealants and Flowable Composite in Permanent Molars
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-3.13728Keywords:
Dental Caries, Flowable Composite, Pit and Fissures, SealantsAbstract
Objective: To evaluate the retention of self-etch pit and fissure sealants compared to flowable resin composite in the occlusal pits and fissures of permanent molars.
Study Design: Split-mouth clinical trial. Clinicaltrials.gov (trial registration number: NCT06895096).
Place and Duration of Study: Foundation University College of Dentistry and Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Jun 24 to Feb 2025.
Methodology: A total of 84 pairs of first molars in 42 patients between the ages of 8-18 years were included. The first permanent molars were caries-free, having no fracture or hypoplasia, but having pits and fissures showing susceptibility to caries were included in the study. The selected tooth on one side was treated with flowable composite (FC) and the other side was treated with self-etch sealant (SES). The patients were followed up at 3,6 and 9 months interval. For assessment, Modified Simonsen’s Criteria for partial or complete loss of sealants was used.
Results: At follow-up in 3 months, 74(88.09%) of teeth with FC had complete retention whereas only 42(50.00%) complete retention was observed in SES. The retention decreased in both groups with time, but flowable composite sustained better performance. At 9 months, complete loss was noted in 3(3.58%) of the teeth that received flowable composite while in teeth that received sealants with 18(21.43%) having complete loss of sealant. There was significant difference in sealant retention rate at 3, 6, and 9 months follow up.
Conclusion: Flowable composites perform better than self-etch sealants, especially in mandibular molars.
Downloads
References
1. Singh C, Kaur K, Kapoor K. Retention of pit and fissure sealant versus flowable composite: An in vivo one-year comparative evaluation. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2019; 37(4): 372.
https://doi.org/10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_122_19
2. de Jesus WP, de Almeida Queiroz Ferreira L, da Silva WHT, Belém FV, Turrioni AP, de Magalhães CS, et al. Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential. BMC Oral Health 2025; 25(1): 171.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05303-5
3. Penha KJS, Roma F, Filho EMM, Ribeiro CCC, Firoozmand LM. Bioactive self-etching sealant on newly erupted molars: A split-mouth clinical trial. J Dent 2021; 115: 103857.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103857
4. Uzel I, Gurlek C, Kuter B, Ertugrul F, Eden E. Caries-Preventive Effect and Retention of Glass-Ionomer and Resin-Based Sealants: A Randomized Clinical Comparative Evaluation. BioMed Res Int 2022; 7205692. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7205692
5. Gupta D, Rao A, Shenoy R, Suprabha BS. Comparison of clinical effectiveness of conventional and self-etch sealant: a split mouth randomized controlled trial. F1000Res 2022; 11(261).
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.109584.3
6. Ozan G, Sancakli HS, Erdemir U, Yaman BC, Yildiz SO, Yildiz E. Comparative evaluation of a fissure sealant and a flowable composite: A 36-month split-mouth, randomized clinical study. J Dent 2022; 123: 104205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104205
7. Bhuvaneswari P, Vinay C, Uloopi KS, RojaRamya KS, Chandrasekhar R, Chaitanya P. Clinical Evaluation of the Retention of Self-adhering Flowable Composite as Fissure Sealant in 6-9-year-old Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15(3): 322-326.
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2382
8. Gisour EF, Jahanimoghadam F, Aftabi R. Comparison of the clinical performance of self-adhering flowable composite and resin-based pit and fissure sealant: a randomized clinical trial in pediatric patients. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24(1): 943.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04449-6
9. Sengar EV, Mulay S, Beri L, Gupta A, Almohareb T, Binalrimal S. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Flowable Composite Resin Using Etch and Rinse, Self-Etch Adhesive Systems, and Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite Resin in Class V Cavities: Confocal Laser Microscopic Study. Materials 2022; 15(14): 4963. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15144963
10. Vichi A, Margvelashvili M, Goracci C, Papacchini F, Ferrari M. Bonding and sealing ability of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin in class I restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17(6): 1497-1506.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0846-6
11. Taneja S, Singh A. Retention of flowable composite resins in comparison to pit and fissure sealants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gen Dent 2020; 68(4): 50-55.
12. Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S. Evaluation of Different Fissure Sealant Materials and Flowable Composites Used as Pit-and-fissure Sealants: A 24-Month Clinical Trial. Pediatr Dent 2015; 37(5): 468-473.
13. 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; 42(2): 149-157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.11.015
14. Kühnisch J, Bedir A, Lo YF, Kessler A, Lang T, Mansmann U, et al. Meta-analysis of the longevity of commonly used pit and fissure sealant materials. Dent Mater 2020; 36(5): e158-e168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2020.02.001
15. Corona SA, Borsatto MC, Garcia L, Ramos RP, Palma-Dibb RG. Randomized, controlled trial comparing the retention of a flowable restorative system with a conventional resin sealant: one-year follow up. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005; 15(1): 44-50.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00605.x
16. Gupta G, Paul A, Naviwala GA, Prakash D, Alex P. Evaluation between Flowable Composite and Conventional Pit-and-Fissure Sealant among School Children in Bengaluru City: Randomized Controlled Trail. J Dent Res Rev 2022; 9(4): 286-290.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jdrr.jdrr_72_22
17. Saravanan SM, Srinivasan D. Comparative Assessment of Compomers and Ormocers as Pit and Fissure Sealants in Permanent Molars among Children Aged 7-9 Years. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17(7): 742-747.
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2954
18. Beresescu L, Kovacs M, Vlasa A, Stoica AM, Benedek C, Pop M. Retention Ability of a Glass Carbomer Pit and Fissure Sealant. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19(4): 1966
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041966
19. Bhadule SN, Kalaskar R. Clinical Effectiveness of Air Abrasion When Compared to Conventional Acid-etching Technique in Enhancing the Retention of Pit and Fissure Sealants: A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17(3): 377-384.
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2782
20. Ejaz M, Irfan H, Babar BZ, Haider B, Riaz Z, Khan A. Development and Characterization of Novel Dental Composites Using Locally Sourced Materials in Pakistan. Cureus 2024; 16(11): e74328. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.74328
21. Svetha S, Bansal K. Comparison of retention rates of silver nanoparticles-based fissure sealant and conventional resin-based sealant: a one-year randomized clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2025; 26(4): 709-718.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-025-01014-9
22. Hosseinipour ZS, Heidari A, Shahrabi M, Poorzandpoush K. Microleakage of a Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, a Self-Adhesive Fissure Sealant and a Conventional Fissure Sealant in Permanent Teeth with/without Saliva Contamination. Front Dent 2019; 16(4): 239-247.
https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v16i4.2082
23. Bagheri E, Sarraf Shirazi A, Shekofteh K. Comparison of the Success Rate of Filled and Unfilled Resin-Based Fissure Sealants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Dent 2022; 19: 10.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sadia Saleem, Nadia Awan, Mansoor Khan, Nijah Ahmed
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
