Penetration and Adhesion Comparison of Conventional and Self-Etching Sealants

Self-etching sealants simplify application procedures; however, fissure penetration and adhesion may be compromised. Objectives: To analyze fissure penetration and adhesion of a self-etching sealant compared to a conventional sealant with a pre-etch application step. Methods: Twenty-six caries-free extracted human mandibular molars (MCG HAC-Protocol approved) with untreated occlusal fissures were brush-pumiced (Preppies™:Whip Mix) and randomly divided into two groups (n=13) for treatment with a self-etching sealant (Enamel Loc™; Premier) (E) or a conventional sealant (Control) (UltraSeal XT® plus;Ultradent) (U) using manufacturers' protocols. After 24h storage in 100% humidity at 37°C, teeth were thermocycled in water (500cycles, 1cycle/min., 5°-55°C). Teeth were then embedded in acrylic and cut by diamond saw into 0.8mm-thick sections for stereomicroscopic examination (7x) for sealant penetration (Complete or Incomplete Fill) and adaptation (Bonded or Debonded) to the fissures. The sealed fissure sections were categorized as: Complete Fill and Bonded (CF/B); Incomplete Fill and Bonded (IF/B); Complete Fill and Debonded (CF/D); or Incomplete Fill and Debonded (IF/D). The four categories (CF/B, IF/B, CF/D, IF/D) were assigned scores (1,2,3,4, respectively); and the two sealant groups (U and E) were compared using non-parametric statistics (Mann-Whitney, pre-set alpha 0.05). Results: In the U group, four (31%) fissure sections were scored “1”, and nine (69%) were scored “2”. In the E group, seven (54%) were scored “2”, one (8%) was scored “3”, and five (38%) were scored “4” (Mann-Whitney for U vs. E comparison; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The conventional sealant demonstrated significantly better penetration and adhesion than the self-etching material.