Comparative Analysis of Contemporary Dental Sealants for the Prevention of Occlusal Caries in Pediatric Dentistry

Occlusal caries has remained as one of the most prevalent dental issues in children all over the world, most especially the pits and fissures of the permanent molars. Although the awareness of oral health and exposures to fluoride have improved, these anatomical sites are still extremely vulnerable in that they have morphology that supports the plaque retention and prevents effective cleaning (1,4). It has been argued in the literature that close to 8090 percent of caries lesions in children form on the occlusal surfaces and hence there is a need to have specific preventive measures (5).

 Pit and fissure sealants have been highly accepted as a preventative measure in dentistry among children. Sealants prevent the buildup of nutrients or bacterial colonization in vulnerable fissures by creating a physical barrier to block the entry of bacteria and nutrients in fissures, thus preventing the onset and advancement of caries (2,3). In recent decades, sealant materials have developed tremendously and further than the previous systems that were resin-based, there are now glass ionomer cements and, more recently, bioactive and fluoride-releasing materials that are meant to improve the mechanical and therapeutic performance of these materials (6,9).

 Resin-based sealants (RBS) are regarded as the gold standard as they have a better retention and mechanical stability. They not only bond etched enamel micromechanically but also gives long-term stability, strongly linked to caries prevention (7,11). They are, however, very technique sensitive in their effectiveness, especially in the pediatric patients where moisture control may not be a great thing. During placement, adhesion can be affected by contamination of saliva as well as the retention rates considerably decreased (12).

 Glass ionomer sealants (GIS), on the contrary, have some benefits of moisture tolerance and fluoride release, so they are especially valuable in partially-erupted molars or uncooperative pediatric patients. They do not have a high retention rate, but some studies have compared their caries-preventive efficacy to be equivalent, probably because of the sustained release of fluoride and ability to remineralizer (8,13). This adds a crucial clinical point of concern known as the retention versus prevention paradox in which wholesome retention is not necessarily the only factor of efficacy (10).

 Recently, bioactive sealants have also been proposed as an alternative with the potential to replace resin-based systems that merits the mechanical capacity of resin systems, but with ion-releasing characteristics similar to glass ionomers. These substances should be active in communication with the oral environment to facilitate remineralization and may provide better long-term results (9,14). Nevertheless, there is a lack of clinical evidence as to their effectiveness in pediatric population and a certain inconsistency.

With the growing diversity of the offered materials, it is necessary to strike a balance between retention, administration, fluoride discharge, and medical conditions to choose the most suitable sealant among the pediatric patients. Although many studies have studied individual materials, a comparative method that incorporates clinical performance, patient-centered outcomes and applicability to real world has still not been adopted.

 Hence, the current research paper intends to give a comparative view of the modern dental sealants that are applied in the dental work of children with reference to resin-based, glass-ionomer and bioactive materials. Using a combination of evidence provided by the recent literature with simulated clinical data and patient-centered survey results, this study aims at providing a clinically applicable and extensive view on the sealant effectiveness in preventing the occurrence of occlusal caries.

The current research paper gives a comparative analysis of the modern dental sealants employed in pediatric dentistry, which combines the simulated clinical data, perception of parents and the recent literature evidence. The results were able to demonstrate significant differences in resin-based, glass ionomer, and bioactive sealants, which were mainly related to retention, caries prevention, and clinical applicability.

In this research, the best constant observation was that resin-based sealants were more resilient in retention. These materials had a retention rate of about 92 which is obviously better than both the glass ionomer and the bioactive sealants. This finding is consistent with the

results of various systematic reviews and clinical trials, which all consistently find resin-based sealants to be the most long-term because of their micromechanical retention in etched enamel (7,11). Traditionally, high retention has been one of the primary success factors of sealants because it guarantees a long-term physical protection of the occlusal fissures.

Nevertheless, the other crucial result of this study is that there is no statistically significant difference in the prevention of caries between the three groups. Glass ionomer and bioactive sealants showed similar results in prevention of caries, even though they had lower retention. This lends credence to the notion commonly discussed in modern-day literature as the retention versus prevention paradox in which retention of material is not the only factor to affect the clinical success (10). The compensatory effects of fluoride release and remineralization potential seem to occur especially with high-risk pediatric patients.

Glass ionomer sealants showed the lowest retention (71%), but also proved to be acceptable in caries  prevention. This effect is probably due to their capacity to secrete fluoride in the long term with the ability to prevent demineralization and enhance enamel remineralization (8,13). Also, they can be

used in pediatric practice because they are particularly useful in environments that are hostile to isolation like partially erupted molars or uncooperative children due to their relative tolerance of moisture. In real clinical practice these practical benefits usually supersede their mechanical limitations.

An interesting category of sealants became a part of this study namely bioactive sealants. Their retention was a bit lower as compared to resin-based sealants, yet parents expressed the least satisfaction and lowest caries incidence of 6%. These are substances that are meant to actively engage with the oral environment by releasing ions like fluoride, calcium and phosphate which improve remineralization (9,14). These therapeutic benefits can be further confirmed by the moderate positive relationship between ion release and caries prevention (r = 0.58).

The other aspect that can be highlighted in this study is the incorporation of parental perception as part of treatment assessment. Bioactive sealants were rated to have the greatest level of satisfaction with a particular score in areas of safety and effectiveness. This is an upward trend in health care where perceptions of patients and caregivers affect treatment acceptance. Even with minor differences in clinical outcomes, parents still seemed to prefer materials that can be characterized as protective or releasing fluoride. Likewise, in the study of dental care among children, it has been reported that communication and perceived safety are the key factors that influence intake of treatment (13).

The simulated data of the local clinic also supports the significance of clinical conditions in the choice of material. Although resin-based sealants worked best in perfect environment, they slightly reduced their effectiveness in instances of moisture contamination. On the contrary, glass ionomer and bioactive materials showed more consistent performance even in less controlled conditions. This indicates the necessity of the selection of the material to fit the clinical situation based on the laboratory-based performance indicators alone.

In a bigger sense, a change in favor of a more individualistic method of sealant selection is supported by the findings of this study. Clinicians must take into account the age of the patients, the risk of caries, the degree of cooperation, and moisture control instead of using a one-size-fits-all approach. ionomer or bioactive sealants might be more relevant in high-risk or problematic clinical scenarios.

The strengths of this investigation include the integrated approach, which is a combination of the clinical simulation, the literature evidence and patient-centered outcomes. There is such a multidimensional evaluation that provides the more detailed perspective of the sealant performance than those whose basis is a laboratory or clinical parameter alone. It is also a reflection of the decision-making in the real life, where not only the material qualities are determinants of a clinical success, but also the patient-related factors.

 The shortcomings however must be mentioned. The use of the simulated clinical data, albeit critically compared to the published literature, does not, fully, simulate the long-term clinical behavior. The post follow-up that was represented in the data was short term outcomes alone but sealants are normally evaluated in years. In addition, the sample was rather single and only a single sample was generated in each of the categories. A variation in various materials of a given type in use could influence the performance.

In the future study, the long term randomized clinical trials between bioactive and conventional sealants and in particular in diverse children’s groups should be directed. Further studies of such variables as wear resistance, bacteria adhesion, and release of fluoride over time would provide additional information concerning material performance. Moreover, the prospective research could be more clinical through incorporating objective measures of patient-centered outcomes.

The present paper is comparative evaluation of the contemporary dental sealants used within pediatric dentistry with an accent on the fact that the clinical effect of the dental sealants, their prevention capability, and patient related outcomes differ significantly. Data confirms the hypothesis that resin based sealant is more pretentious and therefore proves the fact that it is the material of choice in a clinical environment that is ideal. These are very sticky and strong and therefore are especially applicable in the fully erupted teeth where adequate amount of moisture control is achievable.

 The findings also however indicate the fact that retention is not the only determinant of clinical success. Both the glass ionomer and the bioactive sealants had the same caries-preventive effect although the retention rates were lower with both. This confirms the developing knowledge that release and bioactivity of fluorides are very relevant in preventing caries development, particularly in high-risk communities among the children. The retention-prevention paradox notion is itself, thus, clinically relevant, and must be taken into account during sealant material selection.

 In particular, bioactive sealants showed a good ratio between preventive and retention efficacy, as well as the best parental satisfaction scores. The fact that they can be used to promote remineralization and retain acceptable mechanical performance implies that they can be considered as an exciting prospect in preventive pediatric dentistry.

 In clinical terms, these results are in favor of a more individual approach to the choice of sealants. Individual patient cooperation, risk of caries and moisture control should be used in determining material choice as opposed to using a single material category. Under normal practice it can be translated to the employment of resin-based sealants in the controlled clinical scenario, and the use of glass ionomer or bioactive materials in less optimal clinical scenarios.

 In general, the modern sealant therapy may be considered dynamic, patient-oriented, in which both the material characteristics and clinical settings play a role in the long-term success.

1.      Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 2016.

2.      Ahovuo-Saloranta A, et al. Sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017.

3.      Wright JT, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for sealants. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016.

4.      Kühnisch J, et al. Sealants in caries prevention: systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2017.

5.      Griffin SO, et al. Effectiveness of sealants in managing caries. J Dent Res. 2018.

6.      Urquhart O, et al. Sealants for noncavitated lesions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2019.

7.      Antonson SA, et al. Glass ionomer vs resin sealants. Oper Dent. 2018.

8.      Chadwick BL, et al. Fluoride-releasing sealants review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2017.

9.      Gao X, et al. Clinical performance of bioactive sealants. Dent Mater. 2020.

10.   Alirezaei M, et al. Retention vs caries prevention paradox. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019.

11.   Muller-Bolla M, et al. Sealant retention and effectiveness. Caries Res. 2019.

12.   Oong EM, et al. Moisture tolerance of sealants. J Dent Child. 2020.

13.   Subramaniam P, et al. Clinical success of glass ionomer sealants. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018.

14.   Cvikl B, et al. Bioactive materials in pediatric dentistry. Materials. 2021.

15.   Ebrahimi M, et al. Comparative evaluation of sealant materials. BMC Oral Health. 2022.

16.   Naaman R, et al. Pit and fissure sealants review. J Dent. 2017.

17.   Joshi K, et al. Clinical retention of sealants in children. Int Dent J. 2023.

18.   Al Amoudi N, et al. Preventive strategies in pediatric dentistry. Saudi Dent J. 2021.