Evaluation of Embrace WetBond and Helioseal-F sealant retention with and without a Self-etch adhesive: A 12 month follow-up

Photobiomodulation and glass ionomer sealant as complementary treatment for hypersensitivity in molar incisor hypomineralisation in children: protocol for a blinded randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Photobiomodulation has been widely used as a complementary treatment for dentin hypersensitivity, with reports of clinical success. However, the literature offers only one study, in which photobiomodulation was used for the treatment of sensitivity in molars with molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH). The aim of the proposed study is to determine whether photobiomodulation enhances the results of treatment with glass ionomer sealant on molars with MIH that present sensitivity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study involves 50 patients from 6 to 12 years of age that will be randomly allocated in two groups. Group 1 (control group) (n=25): toothpaste with a concentration of fluoride ≤1000 ppm two times a day, glass ionomer sealant and sham low-level laser (LLL) and group 2 (n=25): toothpaste with a concentration of fluoride ≤1000 ppm two times a day, glass ionomer sealant and active LLL. The evaluations will involve MIH record, Simplified Oral Hygiene Index (OHI), Schiff Cold Air Sensitivity Scale (SCASS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) before the procedure. Immediately after the procedure, the hypersensitivity index (SCASS/VAS) will be registered. Records of OHI and SCASS/VAS will be registered after 48 hours as well as 1 month after the procedure. The persistence of the sealant will also be registered. It is expected that by the second consultation, a decrease in sensitivity will be observed due to the treatments received in the two groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by the local medical ethical committee (certificate: CEUCU 220516). The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05370417.

Comparative Assessment of Retention and Caries Protective Effectiveness of a Hydrophilic and a Conventional Sealant-A Clinical Trial

Sealants are highly efficient and the most secure method for the prevention of caries lesions from pits and fissures in recently erupted permanent teeth. The aim of this study is to clinically assess and compare the retention and evolution of caries of a moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant with a conventional hydrophobic resin-based sealant. Material and method: We have included in the study 28 children with between 6 and 8 years old. For each child we sealed 4 permanent molars (a total of 112 teeth). The study group was divided into two subgroups: the Embrace Group—consisting of 56 first permanent molars that underwent dental sealing with moisture-tolerant resin-based fissure sealant (Embrace™ WetBond™ Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) and the Helioseal Group—represented by the same number of 56 first permanent molars that were sealed with conventional hydrophobic resin-based sealant (Helioseal F™, Ivoclar Vivadent Schaan, Liechtenstein). The retention and the incidence of new carious lesions of each sealant were assessed clinically at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Results: The 12-month follow-up assessment showed perfect integrity in 50 molars (89.28%) sealed with moisture-tolerant resin-based material (Embrace Group), and in 51 molars (91.07%) with conventional resin-based sealant (Helioseal Group). At the 24-month recall, the retention was maintained in 44 molars (78.57%) in the Embrace Group and in 45 molars (80.35%) in the Helioseal Group, respectively. The follow-up assessments showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.5) between the two materials regarding sealant retention. First evidence of new carious lesions was present at 12 months on two molars sealed with Embrace WetBond and on one molar sealed with Helioseal. At the 24-month evaluation, the prevalence of caries in the Embrace Group was 7.14% (four caries) and 3.56% (two caries) in the Helioseal Group. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two materials regarding new caries development at any of the follow-up assessments. Conclusions: Moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant was effective in terms of retention and caries prevention.