ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016
Comparative Evaluation of the Marginal Sealing Ability of two Commercially Available Pit and Fissure Sealants.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative study on the microleakage performance of different pit and fissure sealants.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Effects of papain-based gel and air-abrasion enamel pretreatments on microleakage, sealant penetration, and shear bond strength of fissure sealant materials: anFrontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of Novel Pit and Fissure Sealant Infused with Silver Nanoparticles in Comparison with Conventional Pit and Fissure Sealant in both Primary and Permanent Teeth: An SEM and Stereomicroscope Study.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of different pit and fissure sealants' marginal sealing abilities.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of microleakage and penetration depth of ACP containing pit and fissure sealant and flowable composite - AnJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the effect of high-intensity light-curing device on micro-leakage of pits and fissure sealants.Lasers in medical science · 2023Article
- Microleakage and penetration capability of various pit and fissure sealants upon different sealant application techniques.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Article
- Assessment of Embrace-WetBond and Fissurit F Pit and Fissure Sealants' Marginal Sealing Abilities.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2023Article
- A concise review of dental sealants in caries management.Frontiers in oral health · 2023Review
- Effectiveness of Seven Types of Sealants: Retention after One Year.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistryArticle
- Factors influencing the retention rate of resin based pit and fissure sealant among primary school children- A randomised clinical trial.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
- Evaluation of Microleakage of Different Types of Pit and Fissure Sealants: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistryArticle
- Evaluation of Marginal Microleakage and Depth of Penetration of Different Materials Used as Pit and Fissure Sealants: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe occlusal surfaces of the teeth usually have pits and fissures which provide a good environment for demineralization with minimal salivary access and make them caries prone. The success of pit and fissure sealing materials is highly dependent on the marginal sealing ability of the fissures.
aimThe present study was carried out to evaluate and compare the marginal sealing ability of two commercially available pit and fissure sealants. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 50 human premolar teeth were used in this invitro study. Group 1 included 25 teeth for application of Clinpro sealant and Group 2 included twenty 25 for application of Helioseal F sealant. Samples were stored in artificial saliva for 72 hours before thermocycling. The samples were immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. The sectioned samples were examined under an Optical Stereomicroscope and compared in terms of the extent of microleakage based on the amount of dye penetration between the sealant and tooth substance interface. The dye penetration scores in both the groups was statistically analysed using Chi square test and Mann Whitney Test. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
resultsIt was seen that in Group 1, 12 samples (48%) had no dye penetration (Grade 0) while in Group 2, 6 samples (24%) demonstrated Grade 0 penetration. Group 2 had the most extensive dye penetration (Grade 3) in 8 of 25 samples (32%) (p=0.014).
conclusionOn comparison of the microleakage scores of the groups, a statistically significant difference was found between the two groups; indicating a much better performance of Clinpro as compared to Helioseal F.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.