In Vitro Comparison of the Performance of Hydrophilic and Conventional Hydrophobic Resin-Based Fissure Sealants
Issued Date
2025-08-01
Resource Type
ISSN
00206539
eISSN
1875595X
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105005096733
Journal Title
International Dental Journal
Volume
75
Issue
4
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
International Dental Journal Vol.75 No.4 (2025)
Suggested Citation
Anika T.H., Harnirattisai C., Nakornchai S., Jirarattanasopha V. In Vitro Comparison of the Performance of Hydrophilic and Conventional Hydrophobic Resin-Based Fissure Sealants. International Dental Journal Vol.75 No.4 (2025). doi:10.1016/j.identj.2025.04.005 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/110300
Title
In Vitro Comparison of the Performance of Hydrophilic and Conventional Hydrophobic Resin-Based Fissure Sealants
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Hydrophilic sealants were developed to overcome hydrophobic sealant moisture sensitivity; however, there is still a limited understanding of their performance. This study aimed to compare microshear bond strength, penetration depth, and microleakage of hydrophilic UltraSeal XT hydro and hydrophobic Clinpro resin-based sealants placed in various surface conditions. Methods: Seventy-two enamel slices and 60 molars were randomly assigned into two groups: Group 1 UltraSeal XT hydro and Group 2 Clinpro, which were further subdivided into three groups based on the enamel surface conditions (dry, slightly moist, and saliva-contaminated). After applying sealant and undergoing 5000 thermocycling cycles, microshear bond strength was tested. Additionally, penetration depth and microleakage were evaluated under a light microscope after staining with 50% silver nitrate solution. Results: Group 1 demonstrated significantly higher microshear bond strength than Group 2 across all experimental conditions (P < .001). Both sealants showed the highest microshear bond strengths under dry conditions, followed by slightly moist and saliva-contaminated conditions (P < .001). The penetration depth between the two sealant types was comparable within each surface condition. However, both sealants showed significantly deeper penetration on dry enamel surfaces compared to slightly moist and saliva-contaminated surfaces (P < .001). Similarly, both sealants exhibited significantly less microleakage on dry enamel surfaces compared to slightly moist and saliva-contaminated surfaces (P < .001). While the mean microleakage value was similar between the two sealants under dry and saliva-contaminated conditions, Group 1 showed significantly lower microleakage than Group 2 under moist conditions (P < .001). Conclusion: The hydrophilic UltraSeal XT hydro sealant exhibited superior bond strength compared to the hydrophobic Clinpro sealant across all surface conditions. On slightly moist surfaces, UltraSeal XT hydro showed significantly lower microleakage than Clinpro. Both sealants exhibited superior sealing and retentive ability on dry enamel surfaces compared to the other surfaces.