Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 7, 2025
Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials
Published on: January 10, 2025
Comparative evaluation of a fissure sealant and a flowable composite: A 36-month split-mouth, randomized clinical
Gunce Ozan1, Hande Sar Sancakli1, Ugur Erdemir1
1Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Restorative Dentistry, Turkey.
Objectives:
The purpose of the present clinical evaluation was to investigate the effect of a fissure sealant and a flowable composite at fissures of permanent molars in terms of retention and caries-incidence rates over a 36-month period.
Methods:
Thirty-four patients, ages varied from 16 to 22 years, diagnosed with at least 2 non-cavitated pit-and-fissure caries in the first and second molars were involved in the study. A total of 220 sealants, were placed in 117 upper molars and 103 lower molars. Teeth were sealed with either a flowable resin composite (Tetric Evo Flow) or a sealant material (Helioseal F)(n = 110). Each restoration was evaluated in terms of retention and caries incidence at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months according to their location as well. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U, Friedman and 1-way ANOVA tests at p < 0.05.
Results:
Tetric Evo Flow showed total retention with 95.5%, 93.8%, 88.5% and 80.2% at 6, 12, 24 and 36-month follow-ups respectively, while Helioseal F had retention rates of 95.5%, 94.8%, 85.4% and 80.2% respectively. After 36-months, there were 6 subjects totally lost in Helioseal F group, whereas 7 of the Tetric Evo Flow sunjects were totally lost. Caries development was firstly detected at 12-month evaluation for both of the materials however, no significant differences were observed among materials in retention rates or caries incidence after 36-month follow-ups (p > 0.05).
Significance:
Using the flowable composite found as effective as the fissure sealant after 36-months regarding retention and caries incidence rates.
