Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant: A 24-month split-mouth, randomized, and controlled study

ObjectivesThe aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the retention rate and caries-prevention effect of a flowable composite compared to a conventional resin-based sealant in a young population over a 24-month period.MethodsThirty-four patients, ranging in age from 16 to 22 years, diagnosed with at least 2 non-cavitated pit-and-fissure caries in the first and second molars were selected for this randomized split-mouth design trial. A total of 220 sealants, were placed in 117 upper molars and 103 lower molars. The teeth were sealed with a flowable resin composite (Tetric Evo Flow) or a sealant material (Helioseal F). Each restoration was independently evaluated in terms of retention and the presence of caries at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months. Data were analyzed using non-parametric Mann–Whitney U and Friedman 1-way ANOVA tests at p < 0.05.ResultsTetric Evo Flow showed complete retention with 100%, 95.5%, 93.8%, and 88.5% at 1, 6, 12, and 24-month evaluations, respectively, while Helioseal F retention rates were 98.1%, 95.5%, 94.8%, and 85.4%, respectively, for the same evaluation periods. At the 24-month recall, 4 (4.2%) total losses were observed in subjects treated with Tetric Evo Flow and 2 total losses (2.1%) for Helioseal F, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the materials in retention rates or caries incidence for each evaluation period (p > 0.05).ConclusionPlacement of flowable composite as fissure sealants in the younger population seems to be as effective as conventional fluoride containing fissure sealants for the prevention of fissure caries.Clinical relevanceThe use of a flowable composite as a fissure sealant material, in conjunction with a total-etch, single bottle adhesive, yielded better retention than did the conventional fluoride containing resin-based fissure sealant over a 24-month period in young patients.