Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Pit and fissure sealants are the most commonly used preventive measure against caries in permanent molars. Advancements in dental materials have led to the development of hydrophilic sealants. However, their clinical efficacy must be evaluated and compared with that of conventional hydrophobic sealants.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to clinically evaluate and compare the retention, marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration of hydrophilic and hydrophobic pit and fissure sealants over a 12-month follow-up period.
METHODS: The study was a split-mouth, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. A sample size calculation was performed, and 120 first permanent molars (60 in each group) were selected for inclusion in the study. According to the split-mouth design, the sample was randomly divided into 2 groups. Group A was treated with a hydrophilic sealant (UltraSeal® XT Hydro), while Group B was treated with a hydrophobic sealant (Conseal F). The sealants in both groups were applied in accordance with the manufacturer\'s instructions by a single operator. The sealants were evaluated clinically using visual and tactile methods by 2 independent examiners who were blinded to the procedure in accordance with the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) clinical rating system at placement and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.
RESULTS: After 12 months of follow-up, the Conseal F sealant showed significantly better retention (p = 0.001), marginal adaptation (p = 0.023) and reduced marginal discoloration (p = 0.004) in comparison to the UltraSeal XT Hydro sealant.
CONCLUSIONS: The Conseal F (hydrophobic) sealant demonstrated superior retention, marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration compared to the UltraSeal XT Hydro (hydrophilic) sealant.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to clinically evaluate and compare the retention, marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration of hydrophilic and hydrophobic pit and fissure sealants over a 12-month follow-up period.
METHODS: The study was a split-mouth, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. A sample size calculation was performed, and 120 first permanent molars (60 in each group) were selected for inclusion in the study. According to the split-mouth design, the sample was randomly divided into 2 groups. Group A was treated with a hydrophilic sealant (UltraSeal® XT Hydro), while Group B was treated with a hydrophobic sealant (Conseal F). The sealants in both groups were applied in accordance with the manufacturer\'s instructions by a single operator. The sealants were evaluated clinically using visual and tactile methods by 2 independent examiners who were blinded to the procedure in accordance with the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) clinical rating system at placement and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.
RESULTS: After 12 months of follow-up, the Conseal F sealant showed significantly better retention (p = 0.001), marginal adaptation (p = 0.023) and reduced marginal discoloration (p = 0.004) in comparison to the UltraSeal XT Hydro sealant.
CONCLUSIONS: The Conseal F (hydrophobic) sealant demonstrated superior retention, marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration compared to the UltraSeal XT Hydro (hydrophilic) sealant.
摘要：
背景：凹坑和裂缝密封剂是最常用的预防恒磨牙龋齿的预防措施。牙科材料的进步导致了亲水性密封剂的发展。然而,必须评估其临床疗效，并与常规疏水密封剂进行比较。
目的：本研究旨在临床评估和比较保留，在12个月的随访期内，亲水性和疏水性凹坑和裂缝密封剂的边缘适应和边缘变色。
方法：这项研究是张口，双盲,随机对照试验。进行了样本量计算，选择120颗第一恒磨牙(每组60颗)纳入研究。根据裂口设计，将样本随机分为2组。A组用亲水性密封剂(UltraSeal®XTHydro)处理,而B组用疏水性密封剂(ConsealF)处理。两组中的密封剂均按照制造商的说明由一名操作员施用。由2名独立的检查者使用视觉和触觉方法对密封剂进行临床评估，这些检查者在放置时以及在1、3、6和12个月时根据改良的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）临床评级系统对该程序不知情。
结果：经过12个月的随访，ConsealF密封剂显示出明显更好的保留(p=0.001)，与UltraSealXTHydro密封剂相比，边缘适应（p=0.023）和减少的边缘变色（p=0.004）。
结论：ConsealF（疏水）密封剂表现出优异的保留力，与UltraSealXTHydro（亲水性）密封剂相比，边缘适应和边缘变色。
目的：本研究旨在临床评估和比较保留，在12个月的随访期内，亲水性和疏水性凹坑和裂缝密封剂的边缘适应和边缘变色。
方法：这项研究是张口，双盲,随机对照试验。进行了样本量计算，选择120颗第一恒磨牙(每组60颗)纳入研究。根据裂口设计，将样本随机分为2组。A组用亲水性密封剂(UltraSeal®XTHydro)处理,而B组用疏水性密封剂(ConsealF)处理。两组中的密封剂均按照制造商的说明由一名操作员施用。由2名独立的检查者使用视觉和触觉方法对密封剂进行临床评估，这些检查者在放置时以及在1、3、6和12个月时根据改良的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）临床评级系统对该程序不知情。
结果：经过12个月的随访，ConsealF密封剂显示出明显更好的保留(p=0.001)，与UltraSealXTHydro密封剂相比，边缘适应（p=0.023）和减少的边缘变色（p=0.004）。
结论：ConsealF（疏水）密封剂表现出优异的保留力，与UltraSealXTHydro（亲水性）密封剂相比，边缘适应和边缘变色。
