TY - JOUR
T1 - A randomized control clinical trial of fissure sealant retention
T2 - Self etch adhesive versus total etch adhesive
AU - Aman, Nadia
AU - Khan, Farhan Raza
AU - Salim, Aisha
AU - Farid, Huma
PY - 2015/1/1
Y1 - 2015/1/1
N2 - Context: There are limited studies on comparison of Total etch (TE) and Self etch (SE) adhesive for placement of sealants.Aims: The aim of the study was to compare the retention of fissure sealants placed using TE adhesive to those sealants placed using SE (seventh generation) adhesive.Settings and Design: The study was conducted in the dental section, Aga Khan University Hospital. This study was a randomized single blinded trial with a split mouth design.Materials and Methods: The study included 37 patients, 101 teeth were included in both study groups. The intervention arm was treated with SE Adhesive (Adper Easy One, 3M ESPE, US). Control arm received TE adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE, US) before sealant application. The patients were followed after 6 months for assessment of sealant retention. Statistical analysis used: Interexaminer agreement for outcome assessment was assessed by Kappa Statistics and outcome in intervention group was assessed by McNemar's test.Results: Ninety-one pairs of molar (90%) were reevaluated for sealant retention. Complete retention was 56% in TE arm and 28% in SE arm with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.7.Conclusions: Sealants applied with TE adhesives show higher rate of complete sealant retention than SE adhesive.
AB - Context: There are limited studies on comparison of Total etch (TE) and Self etch (SE) adhesive for placement of sealants.Aims: The aim of the study was to compare the retention of fissure sealants placed using TE adhesive to those sealants placed using SE (seventh generation) adhesive.Settings and Design: The study was conducted in the dental section, Aga Khan University Hospital. This study was a randomized single blinded trial with a split mouth design.Materials and Methods: The study included 37 patients, 101 teeth were included in both study groups. The intervention arm was treated with SE Adhesive (Adper Easy One, 3M ESPE, US). Control arm received TE adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE, US) before sealant application. The patients were followed after 6 months for assessment of sealant retention. Statistical analysis used: Interexaminer agreement for outcome assessment was assessed by Kappa Statistics and outcome in intervention group was assessed by McNemar's test.Results: Ninety-one pairs of molar (90%) were reevaluated for sealant retention. Complete retention was 56% in TE arm and 28% in SE arm with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.7.Conclusions: Sealants applied with TE adhesives show higher rate of complete sealant retention than SE adhesive.
KW - Dental sealants
KW - dentin bonding agent
KW - fissure sealants
KW - one-step dentin bonding system
KW - pit and fissure sealants
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84921380793&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4103/0972-0707.148883
DO - 10.4103/0972-0707.148883
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84921380793
SN - 0972-0707
VL - 18
SP - 20
EP - 24
JO - Journal of Conservative Dentistry
JF - Journal of Conservative Dentistry
IS - 1
ER -