ArticleBMC oral health2026
Microleakage, penetration depth, and fluoride release of Embrace Wetbond, Denuseal, and Helioseal F Plus pit and fissure sealants: a comparative in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe clinical longevity of pit and fissure sealants is closely related to their physical and chemical properties. To address the moisture sensitivity of hydrophobic pit and fissure sealants, hydrophilic types were introduced; however, their performance is not yet fully understood.
objectivesThe present study was carried out to compare and evaluate microleakage, penetration depth, and fluoride release of three different pit and fissure sealants.
methodsThirty extracted permanent upper first premolars were randomly distributed to three groups: Embrace WetBond, Denuseal, and Helioseal F Plus, each with or without bonding application (n = 5). Microleakage and penetration depth were evaluated using dye penetration, stereomicroscope examination, and image analysis software. Fluoride release was measured over four weeks using the SPANDS colorimetric method. SPSS version 27.0 was used for statistical analysis, and significance was set at P < 0.05.
resultsBonding application did not significantly reduce microleakage or improve penetration depth for any of the tested materials (p > 0.05). Helioseal F Plus demonstrated significantly lower microleakage and greater penetration under both bonded and non-bonded conditions compared with Denuseal (p < 0.05). Embrace WetBond showed higher microleakage and lower penetration depth than Helioseal F Plus. All tested pit and fissure sealants exhibited a pronounced initial fluoride release followed by a significant decline over time (p < 0.001). Embrace WetBond consistently gave the highest fluoride values among the three materials from Week 1 onward (p < 0.05).
conclusionHelioseal F Plus demonstrated superior sealing ability with minimal microleakage and satisfactory penetration. Embrace WetBond exhibited enhanced fluoride release patterns.
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.