A clinical study of sealants polymerized with two different light sources

Abstract

This clinical study investigated the efficacy of the new LED LCU technology when compared to that of the QTH LCU by evaluating retention and wear of Clinpro (3M ESPE) sealant material over six months of function. This study was designed as a split mouth, randomized clinical study. Sealants were placed and polymerized on contralateral teeth of 35 patients, 33 of which successfully completed the study. The sealants were evaluated for clinical retention at baseline, three months, and six months by two evaluators. For the wear analysis, the area of the sealant wear at six months is reported. Nine pairs of molars and 22 pairs of premolar teeth were used. This sample size is smaller than the original sample used for clinical evaluation, because a number of the baseline impressions had to be discarded due to poor impression quality. Subsequent impressions were taken at three months, and six months. Epoxy replicas were made from the impressions and the occlusal surface of each replica was digitized using SigmaScan software. A cummulative legit model was applied to the clinical data, and a linear model was applied to the wear analysis. The results for clinical retention over the six months of function were as follows. At Baseline, for the QTH, 97.3 percent of the teeth received an Alpha score; 2.7 percent received a score of B. For the LED, 87.7 percent received a score of A; 12.3 percent received a score of B. At three months follow-up, for the QTH, 93.1 percent received a score of A; 6.9 percent received a score of B. For the LED, 86.1 percent received a score of A; 12.5 percent received a score of B, and 1.14 percent received a score of C. At six months follow-up, for QTH; 91.7 percent received a score of A; 8.3 percent received a score of B. For the LED, 83.3 percent received a score of A; 15.3 percent received a score of B, and 1.14 percent received a score of C. The hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in clinical retention and wear of Clinpro's sealant polymerized with the QTH or the LED light sources over six months of function. Based on the results of this clinical study, the following conclusions can be made:

At baseline, Clinpro's sealant polymerized with QTH light source showed marginally significant better retention than LED light source (p-value 0.05001). There was no significant difference between light sources for sealant clinical retention at three-month and six-month follow up visits. Wear analysis resulted in marginally significant more wear for molar sealants polymerized with LED LCU (p-value 0.0755). Wear analysis showed no significant difference for premolar sealants polymerized with either light source.