{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03173483779971791, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014104372355430184, 'mean_word_length': 4.744939271255061, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Heat-treated glass ionomer cement fissure sealants: retention after 1 year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess the retention rate of glass ionomer cement (GIC) fissure sealants heated during setting time.


METHODS
One hundred and twelve teeth with well-delineated fissure morphology were sealed with composite resin and GIC. Composite resin (Helioseal F, Vivadent) was used in control group A (56 teeth). GIC (Fuji VII, GC) was applied using split-mouth design with conditioning in group B (26 teeth) and without surface conditioning in group C (30 teeth). GIC was heated with external heat source (Elipar Trilight, Espe) for 40 s during the setting time according to the manufacturer's instructions. Fissure sealants were evaluated 1 year after clinical service.


RESULTS
Retention rate in group A was 80.4% after 1 year of clinical service. Group B showed retention rate of 30.8%, and group C of 26.7%. Two new caries lesions were detected in groups B and C. Significant differences in retention between the composite group and GIC groups were obtained by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.


CONCLUSION
It could be concluded that retention rate of GIC sealing treated with heat during setting time was significantly lower than retention of conventional composite resin. The heating procedure during setting of GIC sealants cannot be recommended as routine treatment in clinical practice.