Article Data

  • Views 798
  • Dowloads 111

Original Research

Open Access

Comparison of three different preparation methods in the improvement of sealant retention

  • Laura Camacho Castro1,*,
  • Ana Claudia Galvão1

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, 1 Kneeland Street, Boston, MA 02111.

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.28.3.6601q47p5364206p Vol.28,Issue 3,July 2004 pp.249-252

Published: 01 July 2004

*Corresponding Author(s): Laura Camacho Castro E-mail: XXX


The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of three invasive fissure preparation methods in the

retention of sealant on the surfaces of permanent molars. One hundred and eight extracted caries-free human

molars were used in this study, which were divided into 3 groups according to the fissure preparation: laser, air

abrasion and bur. In addition, each of these three groups was further divided into 2 additional groups to isolate

those in which a bonding agent would be used from those in which a bonding agent would not be used. After

the accomplishment of the different treatments, samples from all the 6 experimental groups were submitted to

two different bond strength tests: (i) shear bond strength test and (ii) tensile bond strength test. Bond strengths

were determined by the dividing fracture load and a statistical test ANOVA was used to evaluate significant differences.

The results showed that laser improved the sealant retention when compared with air abrasion preparation

when the bonding agent was used.The use of bonding agent increased the sealant retention in all methods

except for tensile bond strength when air abrasion was used as the preparation method.

Cite and Share

Laura Camacho Castro,Ana Claudia Galvão. Comparison of three different preparation methods in the improvement of sealant retention. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2004. 28(3);249-252.


1. Li SH, Kingman A, Forthofer R, Swango P. Comparison of tooth surface specified dental caries attack patterns in US school children from two national surveys. J Dent Res 72:1398-1405, 1993.

2. Buonocore MG. The simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surface. J Dent Res 34: 849- 53, 1955.

3. Gray GB. An evaluation of sealant restorations after two years. Br Dent J 186: 569-75, 1999.

4. Weintraub JA. Pit and fissures sealants in high-caries-risk individuals. J Dent Educ 65: 1084-90, 2001.

5. Simonsen RJ. Retention and effectiveness of dental sealant after 15 years. J Am Dent Assoc 122: 34-42, 1991.

6. Waggoner WF, Siegal M. Pit and fissure sealant application: updating the technique. J Am Dent Assoc 127:351-361, 1996.

7. Ripa LW. Sealants revisited: An update of the effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants. Caries Res 27: 77-82, 1993.

8. Wendt L-K, Koch G. Fissure sealant in permanent first molar after 10 years. Swed Dent J 12:181-5, 1988.

9. Council on Dental Materials. Instruments and equipment consensus development conference statement on new sealants in the prevention of tooth decay. J Am Dent Assoc 108: 233-36, 1984.

10. Garcia-Godoy F, De Araujo FB. Enhancement of fissure sealant penetration and adaptation – the enameloplasty technique. J Clin Pediatr Dent 19: 13-18, 1994.

11. Shapira J, Eldeman E. Six-year clinical evaluation of fissure sealants placed after mechanical preparation: a matched pair study. Pediatr Dent 8: 204-205, 1986.

12. Shapira J, Eldeman E. The influence of mechanical preparation of enamel prior to etching on the retention of sealants. J Pedod 6: 283-287, 1982.

13. Al-Sehaibany F, White G, Rainey JT. The use of caries detector dye in diagnosis of occlusal carious lesions. The J Clin Pediatr Dent 20: 293-98, 1996.

14. Feldens, E.G et al. Invasive technique of pit and fissure sealant in primary molars: an SEM study. The J Clin Pediatr Dent 18:187- 90, 1994.

15. Rego MA, Araujo MAM. A 2-year clinical evaluation of pit and fissure sealants placed with an invasive technique. Quintessence Int 27: 99-103, 1996.

16. Lin S, Caputo AA, Eversole LR, Rizoiu I. Topographical charac-teristics and shear bond strength of tooth surfaces cut with laser-powered hydrokinetic system. J Prosthet Dent 82: 451-5, 1999.

17. Cozean C, Arcoria CJ, Pelagalli J, Powell GL. Dentistry for the 21st century? Erbium:YAG laser for teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 128: 1080-7, 1997.

18. Dorignac, GF. Efficacy of highly filled composites in the caries prevention of pit and fissures: two and one half years of clinical result. The J Pedod 11: 139, 1987.

19. Tulunoglu O, Bodur H, Uctasli M, Alacam A. The effect of bond-ing agent on the microleakage and bond strength of sealant in primary teeth. J Oral Rehabil 26: 436-41, 1999.

20. Symons AL, Chu CY, Meyers IA.The effect of fissure morphology and pretreatment of the enamel surface on penetration and adhe-sion of fissure sealants. J Oral Rehabil 23: 791-795, 1996.

21. Hitt JC, Feigal RJ. Use of a bonding agent to reduce sealant sensitivity to moisture contamination: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent 14: 41-6, 1992.

22. Feigal RJ, Musherure P, Gillespie B, Levy-Polak M, Quelhas I, Hebling J. Improved sealant retention with bonding agents: A clinical study of two-bottle and single-bottle systems. J Dent Res 79: 1850-56, 2000.

23. Fritz UB, Finger WJ, Stean H. Salivary contamination during bonding procedures with one-bottle adhesive system. Quintessence Int 29: 567-572, 1998.

24. Choi JW, Drommond JL, Dooley R, Punwani I, Soh JM. The efficacy of primer on sealant shear bond strength. Pediatr Dent 19: 286-288, 1997.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 1.8 (2023) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time