Article Data

  • Views 412
  • Dowloads 168

Original Research

Open Access

Clinical evaluation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealants in uncooperative children: a randomized controlled clinical trial

  • Hussein Alharthy1
  • Heba Elkhodary2,3,*,
  • Alaa Nahdreen2
  • Amani Al Tuwirqi2
  • Khlood Baghlaf2
  • Najlaa Alamoudi2

1Dentistry Department, East Jeddah Hospital, Ministry of Health, 22253 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

2Pediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, 21589 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

3Department of Pedodontics and Oral Health, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al Azhar University, 11651 Cairo, Egypt

DOI: 10.22514/jocpd.2024.088 Vol.48,Issue 4,July 2024 pp.149-159

Submitted: 12 September 2023 Accepted: 17 October 2023

Published: 03 July 2024

*Corresponding Author(s): Heba Elkhodary E-mail:


This clinical trial aimed to evaluate and compare the retention and cariostatic effects of hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealants (RBSs) for sealing pits and fissures in the permanent molars of uncooperative children. A split-mouth and double-blind randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted among 6- to 9-year-old uncooperative children. One hundred and four sound mandibular and maxillary first permanent molars were randomly allocated to be sealed with group I (UltraSeal XT® hydro™) or group II (Helioseal-F) in 34 uncooperative children. Clinical evaluation was performed by two investigators using the Color, Coverage and Caries system to assess sealant retention and cariostatic effect at 3-, 6- and 12-month intervals. Data analysis was performed using Friedman’s and Mann-Whitney U tests. The final analysis included 31 children with 49 pairs of teeth. No significant differences were observed between the retention and cariostatic effects of hydrophilic and hydrophobic RBSs at the 3-, 6- and 12-month intervals (p = 0.23, p = 0.638, and p = 0.706, respectively) (p = 0.175, p = 0.065, and p = 0.171, respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, the hydrophilic RBSs showed an outcome equivalent to that of conventional hydrophobic RBSs in terms of retention and cariostatic effects. Therefore, hydrophilic RBSs could be considered as the sealing material of choice when isolation is difficult, particularly in uncooperative children.


Hydrophilic; Hydrophobic; Sealant; Retention; Children

Cite and Share

Hussein Alharthy,Heba Elkhodary,Alaa Nahdreen,Amani Al Tuwirqi,Khlood Baghlaf,Najlaa Alamoudi. Clinical evaluation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealants in uncooperative children: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2024. 48(4);149-159.


[1] Ramamurthy P, Rath A, Sidhu P, Fernandes B, Nettem S, Fee PA, et al. Sealants for preventing dental caries in primary teeth. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews. 2022; 2: CD012981.

[2] Li F, Jiang P, Yu F, Li C, Wu S, Zou J, et al. Comparison between fissure sealant and fluoride varnish on caries prevention for first permanent molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 2020; 10: 2578.

[3] Kashbour W, Gupta P, Worthington HV, Boyers D. Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020; 11. Art. No.: CD003067.

[4] Teimoory N, Katebi K, Ghahramanzadeh A, Vafaei A. Effects of topical fluoride treatment on the bond strength of pit and fissure sealants: a systematic review. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects. 2023; 17: 81–86.

[5] Kühnisch J, Bedir A, Lo Y, Kessler A, Lang T, Mansmann U, et al. Meta-analysis of the longevity of commonly used pit and fissure sealant materials. Dental Materials. 2020; 36: e158–e168.

[6] Prathima G, Mohandoss S, Priscilla S, Kavitha M. Moisture tolerant pit and fissure sealant: a literature review. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2022; 15: 233–239.

[7] Ng TC, Chu CH, Yu OY. A concise review of dental sealants in caries management. Frontiers in Oral Health. 2023; 4: 1180405.

[8] Elkhodary H, Alharthy H, Nahdreen A, Al Tuwirqi A, Baghlaf K. Comparative evaluation of retention and cariostatic effect of hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. 2022; 25: 861–884.

[9] Mohandoss S, Shivashankarappa PG, Priscilla S, Gem E, Muthukrishnan K. Comparative evaluation of sealing ability of moisture-tolerant sealant and glass ionomer sealant using stereomicroscope: an in vitro study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2023; 16: S67–S71.

[10] Alsabek L, Al-Nerabieah Z, Bshara N, Comisi JC. Retention and remineralization effect of moisture tolerant resin-based sealant and glass ionomer sealant on non-cavitated pit and fissure caries: randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Dentistry. 2019; 86: 69–74.

[11] Hugar S, Kohli N, Soneta S, Saxena N, Kadam K, Gokhale N. Psychological behavior management techniques to alleviate dental fear and anxiety in 4–14-year-old children in pediatric dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dental Research Journal. 2022; 19: 47.

[12] McCafferty J, O’Connell AC. A randomised clinical trial on the use of intermediate bonding on the retention of fissure sealants in children. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2016; 26: 110–115.

[13] Frankl S, Shiere F, Fogels H. Should the parent remain in the operatory? Journal of Dentistry for Children. 1962; 29: 150–163.

[14] Bhatia M, Patel A, Shirol D. Evaluation of two resin based fissure sealants: a comparative clinical study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2012; 30: 227–230.

[15] Baheti AS, Bhayya DP, Gupta S, Kumar P, Shyagali TR. Assessment of clinical success of three sealants: Embrace-Wetbond, Clinpro, and Helioseal-F in permanent molars: an in vivo study. Journal of South Asian Association of Pediatric Dentistry. 2020; 3: 7–13.

[16] Askarizadeh N, Heshmat H, Zangeneh N. One-year clinical success of embrace hydrophilic and Helioseal-F hydrophobic sealants in permanent first molars: a clinical trial. Journal of Dentistry. 2017; 14: 92–99.

[17] Konde S, Bhat P, Raj S, Kumar N. Moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant: a boon. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2013; 4: 343–348.

[18] Topal B, Kirzioglu Z. Evaluation of the fissure sealants applied to erupting permanent molars in accordance to eruption stages: a prospective study. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. 2019; 22: 1495–1502.

[19] Khatri SG, Samuel SR, Acharya S, Patil S, Madan K. Retention of moisture-tolerant and conventional resin-based sealant in six- to nine-year-old children. Pediatric Dentistry. 2015; 37: 366–370.

[20] Ratnaditya A, Kumar MGM, Avula SS, Jogendra MZ, Kandregula CR, Chowdhary Kopuri RK. Clinical evaluation of retention in hydrophobic and hydrophillic pit and fissure sealants—a two-year follow-up study. Journal of Young Pharmacists. 2015; 7: 171–179.

[21] Prabakar J, John J, Arumugham I, Kumar R, Srisakthi D. Comparative evaluation of retention, cariostatic effect and discoloration of conventional and hydrophilic sealants—a single blinded randomized split mouth clinical trial. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2018; 9: S233–S239.

[22] Schlueter N, Klimek J, Ganss C. Efficacy of a moisture-tolerant material for fissure sealing: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2013; 17: 711–716.

[23] Thomas E, Mohanraj M, Prabhu R. Comparative evaluation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic resin-based sealants: a clinical study. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2019; 20: 812–817.

[24] Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. International Journal of Surgery. 2012; 10: 28–55.

[25] Achilleos E, Rahiotis C, Kakaboura A, Vougiouklakis G. Evaluation of a new fluorescence-based device in the detection of incipient occlusal caries lesions. Lasers in Medical Science. 2013; 28: 193–201.

[26] Deery C, Fyffe HE, Nugent ZJ, Nuttall NM, Pitts NB. A proposed method for assessing the quality of sealants—the CCC sealant evaluation system. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 2001; 29: 83–91.

[27] Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2018; 18: 91–93.

[28] Khatri S, Madan K, Srinivasan S, Acharya S. Retention of moisture-tolerant fluoride-releasing sealant and amorphous calcium phosphate-containing sealant in 6–9-year-old children: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2019; 37: 92–98.

[29] Lim C, In J. Randomization in clinical studies. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology. 2019; 72: 221–232.

[30] Veerkamp JSJ, Wright GZ. Children’s behavior in the dental office. Wright’s Behavior Management in Dentistry for Children. 2021; 29: 23–35.

[31] Zhu F, Chen Y, Yu Y, Xie Y, Zhu H, Wang H. Caries prevalence of the first permanent molars in 6–8 years old children. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16: e0245345.

[32] Mattar RE, Sulimany AM, Binsaleh SS, Hamdan HM, Al‐Majed IM. Evaluation of fissure sealant retention rates using Isolite in comparison with rubber dam and cotton roll isolation techniques: a randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2023; 33: 12–19.

[33] Mohapatra S, Prabakar J, Indiran MA, Kumar RP, Sakthi DS. Comparison and evaluation of the retention, cariostatic effect, and discoloration of conventional Clinpro 3M ESPE and hydrophilic Ultraseal XT hydro among 12–15-year-old schoolchildren for a period of 6 months: a single-blind randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Pediatric Dentistry. 2020; 13: 688–693.

[34] Fernandes KS, Chalakkal P, De Ataide IDN, Pavaskar R, Fernandes PP, Soni H. A comparison between three different pit and fissure sealants with regard to marginal integrity. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2012; 15: 146–150.

[35] Mallineni S, Bandi M, Nuvvula S. Retention and effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants placed with or without bonding agent in young permanent teeth: a randomized clinical trial with a year follow-up. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2020; 31: 877.

[36] Behroozian A, Aghazadeh Z, Sadrabad ZK, Aghazadeh M, Alizadeh V, Esmaili Z, et al. Evaluation of the success rate of pit and fissure sealants on first molars: 12 months follow-up study. International Journal of Dental Hygiene. 2022; 20: 465–470.

[37] Priyadharshini I, Iyer K, Diwakar MP. Clinical evaluation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic pit and fissure sealants among 7–10 year old school children: a split mouth study design. Brazilian Dental Science. 2021; 24: 1–8.

[38] Ibrahim R, El-Taweil S, Mahmoud S, Elchaghaby M. Effectiveness of the tell-play-do technique in comparison to the tell-show-do technique for the management of anxious children: a randomized controlled trial. Advanced Dental Journal. 2023; 5: 230–242.

[39] Padmanabhan V, Islam MS, Habib M, Abdulaziz Z, Goud M, Chaitanya NC, et al. Association between salivary cortisol levels, dental anxiety, and dental caries in children: a cross-sectional study. Dentistry Journal. 2023; 11: 205.

[40] Feigal RJ, Musherure P, Gillespie B, Levy-Polack M, Quelhas I, Hebling J. Improved sealant retention with bonding agents: a clinical study of two-bottle and single-bottle systems. Journal of Dental Research. 2000; 79: 1850–1856.

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