Clinical performance of resin infiltration and different sealant modalities in noncavitated pits and fissures: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial.
Jyoti Solanki, Garima Jindal, Afroz Alam Ansari et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This split-mouth randomized controlled trial compared resin infiltration, two sealant approaches, and their combination for noncavitated occlusal lesions in 128 permanent molars from 32 children aged 7–14 years. Over 12 months, ICDAS scores improved or remained stable across all four groups. Resin infiltration was associated with greater odds of stabilization than flowable nanohybrid composite (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.10-3.12; P = .021), while the combined approach showed less progression than moisture-tolerant resin sealant (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.05-2.95; P = .034).
Key findings
- ICDAS scores significantly improved or stabilized over time in all four groups (P .001).
- Resin infiltration had greater odds of ICDAS stabilization than flowable nanohybrid composite (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.10-3.12; P = .021).
- The combined infiltration and composite approach showed less lesion progression than moisture-tolerant resin sealant (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.05-2.95; P = .034).
- At 12 months, six teeth required revision; no significant between-group differences were found in DIAGNOdent values or marginal integrity (P > .05).
Why it matters
Noncavitated lesions in young permanent molars may be managed with several preventive restorative modalities, and this trial found short-term cariostatic activity across all four. The differences in lesion stabilization and progression suggest that the choice of material or combination may affect clinical outcomes, although the findings are limited to the study’s population and follow-up.
What to keep in mind
Follow-up was limited to 12 months, and the trial included 32 children.