1Resident Dental Intern, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai-600077, Tamil Nadu, India. Email: 152001035.sdc@saveetha.com
2Assistant Professor, Department of Pedodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, 160, Poonamallee High Road, Vellappanchavadi, Chennai 77, Tamil Nadu, India. Email: rameshr.sdc@saveetha.com
Corresponding Author: Dr. Ramesh R, Assistant Professor, Department of Pedodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, 160, Poonamallee High Road, Vellappanchavadi, Chennai 77. Email: rameshr.sdc@saveetha.com
Introduction: Effective pit and fissure sealing depends largely on proper surface preparation and appropriate material selection. Sealant application remains a well-established preventive strategy for inhibiting the initiation and progression of dental caries, particularly on occlusal surfaces that are highly susceptible to plaque accumulation.
Aim: To compare the microleakage and penetration depth of hydrophilic and hydrophobic pit and fissure sealants following acid etching under dry and moist surface conditions.
Materials and Methods: Sixty freshly extracted primary molars were selected and divided into two groups based on sealant type: hydrophilic (Group A) and hydrophobic (Group B). Each group was further subdivided according to surface condition into dry (A1 and B1) and moist (A2 and B2) subgroups, with two teeth in each subgroup. In the dry groups (A1 and B1), the occlusal surfaces were cleaned, dried using a three-way syringe, etched with 37% phosphoric acid, and the sealant was applied and light-cured. In the moist groups (A2 and B2), the etched surfaces were contaminated with 0.1 mL of fresh human saliva for 20 seconds and gently dried using a cotton pellet before sealant application. All samples were subjected to 500 thermocycles and subsequently sectioned to evaluate microleakage and penetration depth. The sections were examined under a light microscope and analyzed using image analysis software (SigmaScan).
Results: The results indicated that hydrophobic sealants demonstrated greater penetration depth into pits and fissures compared with hydrophilic sealants under both dry and moist surface conditions. However, hydrophilic sealants exhibited comparatively lower microleakage, particularly under moist conditions.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the hydrophilic pit and fissure sealant showed reduced penetration depth but better tolerance to saliva contamination and lower microleakage compared with conventional hydrophobic sealants. These findings suggest that hydrophilic sealants may be advantageous in clinical situations where moisture control is difficult. However, further in vitro and in vivo studies with larger sample sizes are required to comprehensively evaluate their effectiveness, particularly in primary molars.
Keywords: Pit and fissure sealant, Hydrophilic sealant, Hydrophobic sealant, Microleakage, Penetration depth, Primary molars
How to cite this article: Bhavesh S, Ramesh R. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage, Penetration Depth of Hydrophilic and a Contemporary Hydrophobic Pit and Fissure Sealant- An In Vitro Study. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026;16(11s): 306-315; DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16.11s.29
Source of support: Nil.
Conflict of interest: Nil