Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized trial compares internal adaptation of different sealants in extracted permanent premolars, indicating resin-based sealants may be more effective.
Occlusal pits and fissures remain the most vulnerable tooth surfaces for caries initiation, and selecting a sealant that seals these areas reliably is a clinically meaningful question. We investigated the internal adaptation of four pit and fissure sealants—two resin-based and two glass ionomer-based—applied to permanent premolar teeth. Forty extracted premolars were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 10): Group 1, BeautiSealant (BS); Group 2, 3M Clinpro Sealant; Group 3, GC Fuji IX without surface coating; and Group 4, GC Fuji IX with G-Coat Plus. Following 15,000 thermal cycles, internal adaptation was assessed by X-ray microtomography (micro-CT) using silver nitrate as a tracer. No statistically significant difference was found in the overall mean gap volumes between groups (p = 0.774). The 3M™ Clinpro™ Sealant group exhibited the lowest mean gap value (3.45 ± 1.71), followed by BeautiSealant (3.89 ± 1.34) and GC Fuji IX GP® with G-Coat Plus™ (4.93 ± 4.09), whereas the GC Fuji IX GP® without coating group showed the highest mean value (5.56 ± 5.35). Resin-based sealants achieved better fissure penetration and marginal adaptation than the glass ionomer formulations tested, though the differences did not reach statistical significance under the conditions of this study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sajini et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: