Effectiveness of Dryshield system vs. cotton roll isolation on sealant's retention, placement time, and children's acceptance in a dental school setting

Background: Effective isolation from moisture is a crucial component in the application of pit and fissure sealants (PFS) in children. The Dryshield system is a recent dental isolation technology. This study conducted a randomized clinical trial to assess pits and fissure sealants’ (PFS) retention, patients’ acceptance, and placement time needed during PFS application using two isolation techniques—Dryshield system (DS) and cotton roll isolation (CRI)—within a dental school environment. Methods: The trial involved participants aged 7 to 12 years, each with at least one caries-free permanent first molar (PFM) in each quadrant, who attended a university dental clinic and met the eligibility criteria. Participants were randomly divided to receive sealants using either DS or CRI methods, with their placement time recorded. An interview-based questionnaire was used to evaluate patients’ acceptance. PFS retention was assessed at 6, 12 and 18 months. Results: About 153 PFM were sealed (DS = 81, CRI = 72). The average placement times (in seconds) were 2.37 ± 0.7 for the DS group and 2.21 ± 0.6 for the CRI group. Most sealants (66.6%) remained completely retained after 18 months. However, no significant difference was detected between the groups. Participants’ acceptance was similar between the groups across the assessed parameters. Both the Dryshield and CRI techniques were well accepted by pediatric participants. The placement time and sealant retention rates were comparable when senior dental students applied either technique. Conclusions: The Dryshield® system can be considered an effective option, comparable to cotton roll isolation, for applying pit and fissure sealants in pediatric patients. The PROSPERO Registration: The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT05749991.

Fissure sealants; Isolation; Dryshield; Molars; Clinical trial; Retention

[1] Young DA, Nový BB, Zeller GG, Hale R, Hart TC, Truelove EL; American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs; American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. The American dental association caries classification system for clinical practice: a report of the American dental association council on scientific affairs. Journal of the American Dental Association. 2015; 146: 79–86.

[2] Pitts, N, Twetman, S, Fisher, J, Marsh P. Understanding dental caries as a non-communicable disease. British Dental Journal. 2021; 231: 749–753.

[3] Kassebaum NJ, Bernabe E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJ, Marcenes W. Global burden of untreated caries: a systematic review and metaregression. Journal of Dental Research. 2015; 94: 650–658.

[4] Brown LJ, Kaste LM, Selwitz RH, Furman LJ. Dental caries and sealant usage in U.S. children, 1988–1991: selected findings from the third national health and nutrition examination survey. Journal of the American Dental Association. 1996; 127: 335–343.

[5] Noronha JC, Massara ML, Souki BQ, Nogueira AP. First permanent molar: first indicator of dental caries activity in initial mixed dentition. Brazilian Dental Journal. 1999; 109: 99–104.

[6] Batchelor PA, Sheiham A. Grouping of tooth surfaces by susceptibility to caries: a study in 5–16 year-old children. BMC Oral Health. 2004; 4: 2–7.

[7] Wright JT, Crall JJ, Fontana M, Gillette EJ, Nový BB, Dhar V, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Journal of the American Dental Association. 2016; 147: 672–682.e12.

[8] Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Forss H, Walsh T, Nordblad A, Mäkelä M, Worthington HV. Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017; 7: CD001830.

[9] Jenson L, Budenz AW, Featherstone JD, Ramos-Gomez FJ, Spolsky VW, Young DA. Clinical protocols for caries management by risk assessment. Journal of the California Dental Association. 2007; 35: 714–723.

[10] Crall JJ, Donly KJ. Dental sealants guidelines development: 2002–2014. Pediatric Dentistry. 2015; 37: 111–115.

[11] Straffon LH, Dennison JB, More FG. Three-year evaluation of sealant: effect of isolation on efficacy. Journal of the American Dental Association. 1985; 110: 714–717.

[12] Banerjee A, Pickard HM, Watson TF. Pickard’s manual of operative dentistry. 9th edn. Oxford university press: Oxford. 2011.

[13] Winkler R. Sanford Christie Barnum--inventor of the rubber dam. Quintessenz. 1991; 42: 483–486.

[14] Primosch RE, Barr ES. Sealant use and placement techniques among pediatric dentists. Journal of the American Dental Association. 2011; 132: 1442–1451.

[15] Deery C. Strong evidence for the effectiveness of resin based sealants. Evidence Based Dentistry. 2013; 14: 69–70.

[16] Al-Abdulwahhab BM, Al-Thabit H, Al-Harthi A, Shamina R, Al-Ashgai A, Al-Qabbani. The attitudes of dental interns to the use of the rubber dam at Riyadh dental colleges. Saudi Endodontic Journal. 2012; 2: 75–79.

[17] Mala S, Lynch CD, Burke FM, Dummer PM. Attitudes of final year dental students to the use of rubber dam. International Endodontics Journal. 2009; 42: 632–638.

[18] Solmetex. Dryshield dental isolation system. 2019. Available at: https://www.dryshield.com (Accessed: 17 October 2021).

[19] Collette J, Wilson S, Sullivan D. A study of the Isolite system during sealant placement: efficacy and patient acceptance. Pediatric Dentistry. 2010; 32: 146–150.

[20] Alhareky MS, Mermelstein D, Finkelman M, Alhumaid J, Loo C. Efficiency and patient satisfaction with the Isolite system versus rubber dam for sealant placement in pediatric patients. Pediatric Dentistry. 2014; 36: 400–404.

[21] Mattar RE, Sulimany AM, Binsaleh SS, Al-Majed IM. Comparison of fissure sealant chair time and patients’ preference using three different isolation techniques. Children. 2021; 8: 444.

[22] Mattar RE, Sulimany AM, Binsaleh SS, Hamdan HM, Al-Majed IM. Evaluation of fissure sealant retention using Isolite in comparison to rubber dam and cotton roll isolation techniques: a randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2023; 33: 12–19.

[23] Lyman T, Viswanathan K, McWhorter A. Isolite vs cotton roll isolation in the placement of dental sealants. Pediatric Dentistry. 2013; 35: E95–E99.

[24] Bagher S, Allaf H, Khogeer L, Felemban O. Patient satisfaction and preference with dry shield vs. rubber dam isolation among pediatric patients. Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science. 2021; 9: 82–90.

[25] Cohen J. The effect size. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (pp. 77–83). 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ. 1988.

[26] Barkmeier WW, Shaffer SE, Gwinnett AJ. Effects of 15 vs. 60 second enamel acid conditioning on adhesion and morphology. Operative Dentistry. 1986; 11: 111–116.

[27] Simonsen RJ. Retention and effectiveness of dental sealant after 15 years. Journal of the American Dental Association. 1991; 122: 34–42.

[28] Kim J, Shin CH, Park K. Long-term evaluation of sealants applied with an invasive technique. International Dental Journal. 2008; 58: 323–328.