A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Retention of resin-based filled and unfilled pit and fissure sealants: A comparative clinical study. | LitMetric

Background And Objectives: The most caries-susceptible period of a permanent first molar tooth is the eruption phase, during which the enamel is not fully matured and it is usually difficult for the child to clean the erupting tooth surfaces. Sealing occlusal pits and fissures with resin-based pit and fissure sealants is a proven method to prevent occlusal caries. The difference in the viscosity of the sealants differs in the penetration into pit and fissures and abrasive wear resistance property due to the addition of filler particles. The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the retention of the resin-based filled (Helioseal F, Ivoclar Vivadent) and unfilled (Clinpro, 3M ESPE) pit and fissure sealants, which is important for their effectiveness.

Materials And Methods: Fifty-six children between the age group of 6 and 9 years, with all four newly erupted permanent first molars were selected. Sealants were applied randomly using split mouth design technique on permanent first molars. Evaluation of sealant retention was performed at regular intervals over 12 months, using Simonsen's criteria at 2(nd), 4(th), 6(th), 8(th), 10(th) and 12(th) month. The results were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results: At the end of our study period (12(th) month), 53.57% showed complete retention, 37.50% showed partial retention, and 8.83% showed complete missing of resin-based filled (Helioseal F) pit and fissure sealant. And, 64.29% showed complete retention, 32.14% showed partial retention, and 3.57% showed complete missing of resin-based unfilled (Clinpro) pit and fissure sealant. This difference in retention rates between filled and unfilled pit and fissure sealants was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: The difference in retention rates between Helioseal F and Clinpro was not statistically significant, but Clinpro (unfilled) sealant showed slightly higher retention rates and clinically better performance than Helioseal F (filled).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374312PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.152932DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pit fissure
24
fissure sealants
16
resin-based filled
12
retention rates
12
retention
10
retention resin-based
8
filled unfilled
8
unfilled pit
8
filled helioseal
8
unfilled clinpro
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!