Improved Sealant Retention with Bonding Agents: A Clinical Study of Two-bottle and Single-bottle Systems
Robert J. Feigal, P. Musherure, Brenda W. Gillespie, Mariana P. Levy‐Polack, Isabel Quelhas, Josimeri Hebling
Abstract
Robert J. Feigal, P. Musherure, Brenda W. Gillespie, Mariana P. Levy‐Polack, Isabel Quelhas, Josimeri Hebling
Abstract
Recent in vitro work and a short clinical study suggest that adding a bonding agent layer between sealant and saliva-contaminated enamel allows for adequate bond strength and retention of resin sealants and may improve success of all sealant applications. This five-year clinical study scored 617 occlusal and 441 buccal/lingual molar sealants, with use of a split-mouth design, with half receiving sealant alone and half bonding agent plus sealant. Treatment effects and potential risk factors for sealant failure were tested by means of a Cox regression model. Three bonding agent groups were analyzed for treatment effect: Tenure primer, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, and 3 single-bottle dentin bonding agents as a third group. The single-bottle group was successful in reducing risk of sealant failure, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.53 (p = 0.014) for occlusal and 0.35 (p = 0.006) for buccal/lingual sealants. Scotchbond was detrimental to occlusal sealant success, with a HR of 2.96 (p = 0.0003). Tenure primer was neutral, showing HRs close to 1.0. Variables that affected success differed between occlusal and buccal/lingual sealants, suggesting that failures on these two surfaces may be dependent upon differing factors. Early eruption stage was a significant risk factor for both surfaces (HR = 2.91, p = 0.00001, occlusal; and HR = 1.52, p = 0.015, buccal/lingual). Behavior (HR = 1.96, p = 0.0007), salivary problems (HR = 1.73, p = 0.002), and visually apparent variations in enamel (HR = 1.51, p = 0.018) were significant risk factors for occlusal sealants only. In addition to completing detailed analyses of risk factors for sealant survival, this study shows that single-bottle bonding agents protect sealant survival, yielding half the usual risk of failure for occlusal sealants and one-third the risk of failure for buccal/lingual sealants.
OpenAlex reports 170 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Recent in vitro work and a short clinical study suggest that adding a bonding agent layer between sealant and saliva-contaminated enamel allows for adequate bond strength and retention of resin sealants and may improve success of all sealant applications. This five-year clinical study scored 617 occlusal and 441 buccal/lingual molar sealants, with use of a split-mouth design, with half receiving sealant alone and half bonding agent plus sealant. Treatment effects and potential risk factors for sealant failure were tested by means of a Cox regression model. Three bonding agent groups were analyzed for treatment effect: Tenure primer, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, and 3 single-bottle dentin bonding agents as a third group. The single-bottle group was successful in reducing risk of sealant failure, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.53 (p = 0.014) for occlusal and 0.35 (p = 0.006) for buccal/lingual sealants. Scotchbond was detrimental to occlusal sealant success, with a HR of 2.96 (p = 0.0003). Tenure primer was neutral, showing HRs close to 1.0. Variables that affected success differed between occlusal and buccal/lingual sealants, suggesting that failures on these two surfaces may be dependent upon differing factors. Early eruption stage was a significant risk factor for both surfaces (HR = 2.91, p = 0.00001, occlusal; and HR = 1.52, p = 0.015, buccal/lingual). Behavior (HR = 1.96, p = 0.0007), salivary problems (HR = 1.73, p = 0.002), and visually apparent variations in enamel (HR = 1.51, p = 0.018) were significant risk factors for occlusal sealants only. In addition to completing detailed analyses of risk factors for sealant survival, this study shows that single-bottle bonding agents protect sealant survival, yielding half the usual risk of failure for occlusal sealants and one-third the risk of failure for buccal/lingual sealants.
Key concepts: Sealant, Dentistry, Buccal administration, Dental bonding, Enamel paint, Bottle, Medicine, Molar