The purpose of this study was to compare bonded amalgam pit and fissure sealants on unprepared teeth with conventional resin-based pit and fissure sealants over a 5-year period.Materials and Methods
Two operators sealed 57 pairs of contralateral teeth with either conventional resin sealants or with bonded amalgam (Tytin, Kerr, Orange, CA, USA). Patients ranged in age from 6 to 25 years. Rubber dam isolation was used. For the amalgam sealants, enamel was etched with 32% phosphoric acid semi-gel and primed with All-Bond 2 Primer A & B mixture (BISCO, Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA). Liner F base and catalyst (BISCO, Inc.) were mixed and applied in a thin layer, and the amalgam was immediately condensed. Patients were scheduled for yearly recalls over the next 5 years, and sealant retention was rated “A” (complete retention), “B” (partial retention, some grooves exposed, and none at risk for caries—slight loss), “C” (partial retention, some grooves exposed at risk for caries, and repair required), or “D” (total loss). Two trained evaluators worked together for the recall evaluations.Results
Fifteen (58%) patients with 95 teeth (83%) were available for 5-year follow-up. Twelve (26%) amalgam sealants were rated A (no loss) versus 15 (30%) of resin sealants. Those rated B (slight loss) were 16 (34%) amalgam sealants versus 16 (32%) resin sealants. A C rating (repair required) was given to 19 (40%) amalgam sealants and 19 (38%) resin sealants. There were no D (total loss) ratings for either amalgam or resin sealants.Conclusions
Amalgam pit and fissure sealants were retained as well as resin-based pit and fissure sealants after a period of 5 years.