Journal of Dental Medicine

Background and Aims: As in fissure sealant therapy the tooth surface is mostly enamel, the use of an enamel bonding agent (hydrophobic bonding agent) may be more cost effective than that of newer generations of bonding (hydrophilic bonding agents). The aim of this study was to compare the retention and durability of fissure sealant therapy when applying an enamel bonding agent, a dentin bonding agent and no bonding agent during 4 years.

Materials and Methods: This study was done on the first permanent molars of the upper and lower jaws of 24 students of the first grade of a primary school (6-7 years old). On 36 teeth, a dentin bonding agent (Excite) was applied under the fissure sealant and on 36 teeth an enamel bonding agent (Margin bond) was applied under the fissure sealant. Then, 24 teeth were selected from these two groups and were compared with a group (including 24 teeth) with no bonding agent under the fissure sealant (as control group). All the fissures of the teeth were evaluated annually for 4 years to find out the presence or absence of fissure sealant substance. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon test.

Results: From the statistical analysis, there was no significant difference in retention and durability of the fissure sealant substance comparing the group with dentin bonding agent (Excite) and the group with enamel bonding agent (Margin bond). Also, using a bonding agent made no significant difference (P>0.05).

Conclusion: According to the results of this study, using a bonding agent made no improvement in the retention and durability of fissure sealant substance.