Retention Rate of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Resin-Based Sealant under Field Conditions: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical retention rate between hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealant placed under field setting and related factors. Materials and Methods Sixty-six children with 106 pairs of teeth in the same arch with matching International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) scores ranging from0 to 2 were recruited. This study was a split-mouth design with each tooth in the pair randomly assigned into either hydrophobic resin- based sealant group ( Concise white sealant, 3M. EPSE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) or hydrophilic resin-based sealant group ( UltraSeal XT hydro sealant, Ultradent Products, South Jordan, Utah, USA). A dental therapist performed all procedures in a field setting on a mobile dental unit with a mobile saliva ejector. The retention rate was evaluated by two calibrated dentists and classified as fully retained, partially retained, and total loss. Statistical Analysis The outcomes were analyzed using McNemar's, chi-squared, and Fisher's exact test with a significance level of 0.05. Results After 12 months, 65 children with 105 pairs of teeth remained in this study. At 8-month follow- up, fully retained, partially retained, and total loss of material were found at 82.9, 15.2, and 1.9% in the hydrophobic group and 70.5, 26.7, and 2.9% in the hydrophilic group, respectively. At the 12-month follow-up, the outcomes were reduced, respectively, to 80, 17.1, and 2.9% in the hydrophobic group and 68.6, 27.6, and 3.8% in the hydrophilic group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p> 0.05). Arch type was associated with the retention rate (p< 0.05), whereas ICDAS scores showed no correlation (p> 0.05). Conclusion Both hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealant can be used under field conditions, with no significant difference in terms of retention rate.