Clinical Evaluation of the Retention of Resin and Glass Ionomer Sealants Applied as a Part of School-Based Caries Prevention Program
Asem Alkhodairi, Moahmmad Alseweed, Sulaiman Alwashmi, Ramy Elmoazen
Abstract
Open-access reader
Asem Alkhodairi, Moahmmad Alseweed, Sulaiman Alwashmi, Ramy Elmoazen
Abstract
Open-access reader
BACKGROUND: Using of sealant on pits and fissures is likely one of the most generally well-known strategies by the new cavity-prevention systems. AIM: The purpose of this research is to measure the retentiveness of sealants of resin-modified ionomer glass cement (GIC) and resin pits and fissures, on the first permanent molars of special patients as a part of caries prevention program in schools. METHODS: The sample was comprised by 60 molars. Resin-based sealants on one side and glass-ionomer sealant on the contralateral side of the mouth. The molars were examined in three and six months after application for retention with three standards: TR: Totally Retained; PR: Partially Retained; and CL: Completely Lost. RESULTS: by the end of the study 60% of resin sealant was present. While 55% of GIC were retentive after 6 months. CONCLUSION: Resin sealants are more retentive than glass ionomer sealants in school-based carries prevention program.
OpenAlex reports 5 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.
BACKGROUND: Using of sealant on pits and fissures is likely one of the most generally well-known strategies by the new cavity-prevention systems. AIM: The purpose of this research is to measure the retentiveness of sealants of resin-modified ionomer glass cement (GIC) and resin pits and fissures, on the first permanent molars of special patients as a part of caries prevention program in schools. METHODS: The sample was comprised by 60 molars. Resin-based sealants on one side and glass-ionomer sealant on the contralateral side of the mouth. The molars were examined in three and six months after application for retention with three standards: TR: Totally Retained; PR: Partially Retained; and CL: Completely Lost. RESULTS: by the end of the study 60% of resin sealant was present. While 55% of GIC were retentive after 6 months. CONCLUSION: Resin sealants are more retentive than glass ionomer sealants in school-based carries prevention program.
Key concepts: Medicine, Glass ionomer cement, Dentistry, Sealant, Composite material, Materials science