d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 8 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 349–359 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com jo u rn al hom epa ge : www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema Physical, mechanical and rheological characterization of resin-based pit and fissure sealants compared to flowable resin composites Sébastien Beun a,b,c,∗ , Christian Bailly b,c , Jacques Devaux b,c , Gaëtane Leloup a,b,c a Department of Dentistry and Stomatology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium b Institute of Condensed Matter and Nanosciences – Bio & Soft Matter (IMCN/BSMA), Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium c Center for Research and Engineering of Biomaterials (CRIBIO), Brussels, Belgium a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 1 February 2011 Received in revised form 18 July 2011 Accepted 1 November 2011 Keywords: Pit and fissure sealants Resin composites Flowable Viscoelasticity Mechanical properties Filler particles a b s t r a c t Objectives. The purpose of this study was to compare the mechanical and rheological prop- erties of resin-based pit and fissure sealants to flowable resin composites in order to define clinical indications based on these properties. Methods. Eight flowable resin composites (Admira Flow, Filtek Supreme XT Flow, FlowLine, Grandio Flow, Point-4 Flowable, Premise Flowable, Revolution Formula 2, X-Flow) and four resin-based pit and fissure sealants (Clinpro, Delton FS + , Estiseal F, Guardian Seal) were used in this study. Their filler weight content was measured by thermogravimetric analy- sis. Mechanical properties were measured: dynamic and static moduli of elasticity, flexural strength and Vickers microhardness. Rheological measurements were performed using a dynamic oscillation rheometer. Results. Flowable resin composites have by far better mechanical properties than pit and fissure sealants, except for Delton FS + . All the materials tested are non-Newtonian, shear thinning fluids. They all showed elasticity even at the lowest frequencies but elasticity differs pretty much from one material to another. Significance. : Resin-based pit and fissure sealants seem appropriate for preventive pit and fissure sealing. For enlarged fissures, it can be assumed that flowable resin composites with low elasticity at low frequency are more appropriate. © 2011 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Although occlusal surfaces represent only 12.5% of the total surfaces of the permanent dentition, they account for almost 50% of the caries in school children [1]. Tooth surfaces with pits and fissures are thus extremely vulnerable to the development ∗ Corresponding author at: School of Dentistry and Stomatology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc – Université catholique de Louvain, Av. Hippocrate 10/5721, B-1200 Brussels, Belgium. Tel.: +32 2 764 57 30. E-mail addresses: Sebastien.Beun@uclouvain.be, s.beun@skynet.be (S. Beun). of caries [2]. Pit and fissure sealants were introduced in the 1960s as an attempt to prevent occlusal dental caries. From then, their effectiveness has been demonstrated several times [3–5]. Three main types of materials are available as pit and fis- sure sealants: glass ionomer cements, compomers and resins. Since the retention rate of glass ionomer cements, as well as 0109-5641/$ – see front matter © 2011 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.001