Clinical evaluation of three different materials used as pit and fissure sealant: 24-months results. Clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer/resin-based hybrid materials used as pit and fissure sealants. Comparison between saliva stimulants and a saliva substitute in patients with xerostomia and hyposalivation.
To evaluate the retention and caries experience effects of three different materials used as fissure sealants after 24 months of clinical application: a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (A), a flowable resin composite (B) and a compomer (C). One hundred and seventeen (117) teeth were sealed with material A, 119 teeth with material B and 120 teeth with material C. Children were randomly assigned. Each one received only one of the materials studied. Plaque index, dmft score and socioeconomic level were scored at baseline. The clinical exams were conducted 6, 12 and 24 months after application of the sealant. Statistical analysis (Kruskal-Wallis) revealed that there were statistically significant differences between the retention rates of groups A and B and between groups B and C after 2 years, with material B showing better results. After 2 years, 3.1% of the teeth of group A, 4.3% of group B and 6.7% of group C were Carious+Filled. There was no evidence of association between caries presence after 2 years and plaque index, dmft score and socioeconomic level. These results suggest that flowable resin composite had a satisfactory retention after this period of evaluation and all three materials were effective on occlusal caries prevention. The objective of the present study was to clinically evaluate the hybrid materials Vitremer and Dyract when used as pit and fissure sealants.
                The materials were applied in pairs on the mandibular permanent first molars of 100 children, 7 to 8 years old.
                After 12 months of sealing, the clinical evaluation presented rates of 95.9% and 85.7% of complete retention for Dyract and Vitremer, respectively, indicating a statistically significant difference. The hybrid materials presented a statistically significant protective effect against caries compared with the control group at 6 and 12 months.
                The hybrid materials were able to control occlusal caries. The purpose of this study was to assess patient preference and product efficacy of three non-prescription products for the symptomatic relief of xerostomia. The study group consisted of 80 individuals with a complaint of chronic (> six months) xerostomia and an unstimulated salivary flow rate of < 0.1 mL/min. The three products--a sorbitol/xylitol-sweetened chewing gum, a sorbitol-sweetened sour lemon lozenge, and a sorbitol/xylitol-sweetened artificial saliva substitute spray--were assigned in a permuted block randomization scheme. Each product was used for two weeks with an interval of one week between trials. The study did not identify any product to be statistically significant in terms of patient preference. Kruskal-Wallis testing revealed no statistical significance (P > 0.589) among the products. No product demonstrated marked efficacy in stimulating salivary output. ANOVA analysis followed by Tukey HSD testing revealed no significant difference between the baseline paraffin-stimulated mean flow rate and the gum- and lozenge-stimulated flow rates.
It was disappointing that only three trials that compared three different types of materials were suitable for inclusion into this review. There were no significant differences found in all three trials for all of the outcomes assessed. Well designed, randomised controlled trials comparing the different types of filling materials for similar outcomes are urgently needed in dentistry. There was insufficient evidence from the three included trials to make any recommendations about which filling material to use.