Journal of South Asian Association of Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 3 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Assessment of Clinical Success of Three Sealants: Embrace-WetBond, Clinpro, and Helioseal-F in Permanent Molars: An In Vivo Study

Ankita S Baheti, Deepak P Bhayya, Shilpi Gupta, Prabhat Kumar, Tarulatha R Shyagali

Keywords : Marginal integrity, Permanent molars, Pit and fissure sealants, Retention rate

Citation Information : Baheti AS, Bhayya DP, Gupta S, Kumar P, Shyagali TR. Assessment of Clinical Success of Three Sealants: Embrace-WetBond, Clinpro, and Helioseal-F in Permanent Molars: An In Vivo Study. J South Asian Assoc Pediatr Dent 2020; 3 (1):7-13.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10077-3035

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Purpose: To evaluate and compare marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and retention rates of Embrace-WetBond (EW), Helioseal-F (HF), and Clinpro (CL) sealants in permanent molars. Materials and methods: Sealants were applied on 90 permanent mandibular molars in 48 children aged 6–14 years with deep pit and fissures, and evaluation of these sealants was performed using Ryge and Synder's criteria at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 months. Results: Embrace-WetBond showed maximum marginal integrity (83.3%) as compared to CL (73.3%) and HF (60%) at the end of 12 months. Lack of marginal discoloration was highest in EW (93.3%) as compared to CL (76.7%) and HF (80%) at the end of 12 months. Embrace-WetBond showed highest retention (96.7%) as compared to CL (80%) and HF (73.3%) at the end of 12 months. The results were, however, statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Embrace-WetBond sealant is better than CL and HF in terms of retention.

  1. Marwah N. Textbook of pediatric dentistry. 3rd ed., New Delhi: Jaypee Brother's Medical Publishers (P) Ltd; 2014. 285–297.
  2. Reddy VR, Chowdhary N, Mukunda KS, et al. Retention of resin-based filled and unfilled pit and fissure sealants: a comparative clinical study. Contemp Clin Dent 2015;6(Suppl 1):18–23. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.152932.
  3. Pushpalatha HM, Ravichandra KS, Srikanth K, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of different pit and fissure sealants in primary and permanent teeth - an in-vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(2):84–89.
  4. Bhat PK, Konde S, Raj SN, et al. Moisture-tolerant resin-based sealant: a boon. Contemp Clin Dent 2013;4(3):343–348. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.118394.
  5. Schlueter N, Klimek J, Ganss C. Efficacy of a moisture-tolerant material for fissure sealing: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 2013;17(3):711–716. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0740-2.
  6. Khatri SG, Samuel SR, Acharya S, et al. Retention of moisture tolerant and conventional resin-based sealant in six to nine-year-old children. Pediatr Dent 2015;37(4):366–370.
  7. Askarizadeh N, Heshmat H, Zangeneh N. One-year clinical success of embrace hydrophilic and Helioseal-F hydrophobic sealants in permanent first molars: a clinical trial. J Dent (Tehran) 2017;14(2):92–99.
  8. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955;34(6):849–853. DOI: 10.1177/00220345550340060801.
  9. Cueto EL, Buonocore MG. Adhesive sealing of pits and fissures for caries prevention. J Dent Res 1965;44:137.
  10. Hitt JC, Feigal RJ. Use of a bonding agent to reduce sealant sensitivity to moisture contamination: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent 1992;14(1):41–46.
  11. Ninawe N, Ullal NA, Khandelwal V. A 1-year clinical evaluation of fissure sealants on permanent first molars. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(1):54–59. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.94547.
  12. Fernandes KS, Chalakkal P, de Ataide ID, et al. A comparison between three different pit and fissure sealants with regard to marginal integrity. J Conserv Dent 2012;15(2):146–150. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.94588.
  13. Bahrololoomi Z, Soleymani A, Heydari Z. In vitro comparison of microleakage of two materials used as pit and fissure sealants. Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2011;5(3):83–86. DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2011.019.
  14. Bhatia MR, Patel AR, Shirol DD. Evaluation of two resin based fissure sealants: a comparative clinical study. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2012;30(3):227–230. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.105015.
  15. Nirwan M, Nigam GA, Marwah N, et al. A comparative evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealant bonded using sixth, seventh, and eighth-generation adhesives: an in vivo study. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017;35(4):359–366. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_74_17.
  16. Goncalves PS, Kobayashi TY, Oliveira TM, et al. Pit and fissure sealants with different materials: resin based x glass ionomer cement – results after six months. Braz Res Pediatr Dent Integrated Clin 2016;16(1):15–23. DOI: 10.4034/PBOCI.2016.161.02.
  17. McCourt JW, Eick JD. Penetration of fissure sealants into contraction gaps of bulk packed auto-cured composite resin. J Pedod 1988;12(2):167–175.
  18. Subramaniam P, Konde S, Mandanna DK. Retention of a resin based sealant and a glass ionomer used as a fissure sealant: a comparative clinical study. J Ind Soc Pedod Prevent Dent 2008;26(3):114–120. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.43192.
  19. Srinivasan V, Deery C, Nugent Z. In-vitro microleakage of repaired fissure sealants: a randomized, controlled trial. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15(1):51–60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00609.x.
  20. Erickson RL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. Effect of pre-etching enamel on fatigue of self-etch adhesive bonds. Dent Mater 2008;24(1):117–123. DOI: 10.1016/
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.