Retention Rate of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Resin-Based Sealant under Field Conditions: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical retention rate between hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealant placed under field setting and related factors.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Sixty-six children with 106 pairs of teeth in the same arch with matching International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) scores ranging from 0 to 2 were recruited. This study was a split-mouth design with each tooth in the pair randomly assigned into either hydrophobic resin-based sealant group (Concise white sealant, 3M. EPSE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) or hydrophilic resin-based sealant group (UltraSeal XT hydro sealant, Ultradent Products, South Jordan, Utah, USA). A dental therapist performed all procedures in a field setting on a mobile dental unit with a mobile saliva ejector. The retention rate was evaluated by two calibrated dentists and classified as fully retained, partially retained, and total loss.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The outcomes were analyzed using McNemar's, chi-squared, and Fisher's exact test with a significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

After 12 months, 65 children with 105 pairs of teeth remained in this study. At 8-month follow-up, fully retained, partially retained, and total loss of material were found at 82.9, 15.2, and 1.9% in the hydrophobic group and 70.5, 26.7, and 2.9% in the hydrophilic group, respectively. At the 12-month follow-up, the outcomes were reduced, respectively, to 80, 17.1, and 2.9% in the hydrophobic group and 68.6, 27.6, and 3.8% in the hydrophilic group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). Arch type was associated with the retention rate (p < 0.05), whereas ICDAS scores showed no correlation (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealant can be used under field conditions, with no significant difference in terms of retention rate.