A CLINICAL COMPARISON OF A LIGHT-CURED GLASS-IONOMER SEALANT RESTORATION WITH A COMPOSITE SEALANT RESTORATION

Objective: To compare the durability of a minimal composite sealant re storation (MCR) with that of a glass ionomer sealant restoration (GSR) . Methods: Under local anaesthesia, a MCR and a GSR were placed in the mouths of selected patients; allocation of restoration type was made randomly. All restorations were placed by one operator using standard procedures and were then assessed clinically at baseline and thereafte r every 6 months. Results: Fifty-eight patients, with a total of 66 pa irs of restorations, were reviewed for up to 27 months. Assessment cri teria were based upon the amount of sealant lost, the state of the pit restoration and the occurrence of caries. There were no cases of recu rrent caries, and a total of only four pit restorations failed, three (4.5%) GSRs and one (1.5%) MCR. Three MCRs and seven GSRs required fur ther additions of sealant. Survival analysis was carried out using the loss of more than a third of the sealant as the failed status. At thi s level, the MCRs had a significantly greater Median Survival Time (MS T) (24.7 months) than the GSRs (20.7 months) (p < 0.05). Only seven (1 0.6%) of the MCRs lost more than a third of their sealant as compared with 17 (25.8%) of the GSRs.Conclusions: There was no significant diff erence in the durability of the MCR compared with the GSR in the treat ment of occlusal caries. However, there was significantly better reten tion of the fissure sealant over the composite restoration than over t he glass ionomer. Copyright (C) 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.