Objective: To compare the durability of a minimal composite sealant restoration (MCR) with that of a glass ionomer sealant restoration (GSR).
Methods: Under local anaesthesia, a MCR and a GSR were placed in the mouths of selected patients; allocation of restoration type was made randomly. All restorations were placed by one operator using standard procedures and were then assessed clinically at baseline and thereafter every 6 months.
Results: Fifty-eight patients, with a total of 66 pairs of restorations, were reviewed for up to 27 months. Assessment criteria were based upon the amount of sealant lost, the state of the pit restoration and the occurrence of caries. There were no cases of recurrent caries, and a total of only four pit restorations failed, three (4.5%) GSRs and one (1.5%) MCR. Three MCRs and seven GSRs required further additions of sealant. Survival analysis was carried out using the loss of more than a third of the sealant as the failed status. At this level, the MCRs had a significantly greater Median Survival Time (MST) (24.7 months) than the GSRs (20.7 months) (p < 0.05). Only seven (10.6%) of the MCRs lost more than a third of their sealant as compared with 17 (25.8%) of the GSRs.
Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the durability of the MCR compared with the GSR in the treatment of occlusal caries. However, there was significantly better retention of the fissure sealant over the composite restoration than over the glass ionomer.