Unfilled Resin Sealants: A Comprehensive Academic Review Of Composition, Penetration & Clinical Outcomes

Overview

Unfilled resin sealants are integral to preventive dentistry. By removing inorganic fillers, these materials achieve low viscosity and superior fissure penetration—translating into strong early retention and predictable chairside outcomes. Below is a comprehensive review of their composition, mechanics, clinical performance, indications, and best‑practice protocols, geared for clinicians and practice leaders seeking standardized, high‑quality preventive care.

Introduction & Definition

Unfilled resin sealants are pit and fissure sealants formulated without inorganic filler particles. The absence of fillers reduces viscosity, enhances flow, and improves wetting of etched enamel, enabling deeper penetration into narrow and complex fissures. Across systematic reviews and meta‑analyses, unfilled sealants demonstrate superior early retention and comparable caries prevention to filled sealants when retained—underscoring their continued clinical relevance, particularly in pediatric and high‑risk populations.

Chemical Composition & Properties

This section outlines typical formulation ranges and the handling traits clinicians can expect.

Basic Composition

• Resin matrix (95–99%):

  • BIS‑GMA: 40–60%.

  • TEGDMA: 30–50%.

  • UDMA: 0–20%.

  • Other dimethacrylates: 5–10%.

• Polymerization system (1–5%):

  • Photoinitiators (camphorquinone): 0.2–1%.

  • Co‑initiators (tertiary amines): 0.1–0.5%.

  • Stabilizers/inhibitors: 0.1–0.3%.

  • UV absorbers: trace.

Physical Characteristics

• Viscosity: 0.5–2.0 Pa·s; excellent flow; minimal thixotropy.

• Optical: clear to slightly amber; high transparency (>90%); refractive index 1.48–1.52.

• Handling: very fluid; moderate temperature sensitivity; self‑leveling behavior.

Clinical implication: low viscosity enhances capillary action and reduces bubble entrapment, supporting reliable penetration and microretention.

Penetration Ability & Mechanics

Unfilled resins consistently show superior penetration and lateral wall adaptation in deep, narrow fissures.

Penetration Characteristics

• Penetration depth: 90–100% of fissure depth.

• Microporosities filled: >95%.

• Contact angle: <20°, indicating strong wetting.

• Bubble entrapment: minimal with proper isolation.

Mechanism of Action

• Physical processes:

  1. Initial flow into the fissure entrance.

  2. Capillary action draws resin deeper.

  3. Air displacement facilitated by low viscosity.

  4. Lateral spread and wall adaptation.

  5. Conformity to irregularities and undercuts.

• Chemical interactions:

  • Enamel tag formation: ~10–40 μm.

  • Hybrid layer: ~2–5 μm.

  • Primary retention via mechanical interlocking (microretention).

Clinical implication: deeper and denser resin tags support higher early retention and stable margins in preventive applications.

Clinical Advantages

Lower viscosity yields practical gains in retention and workflow efficiency.

Retention Mechanisms

• Deeper enamel tag penetration.

• Higher tag density across etched enamel.

• Superior adaptation to fissure morphology and undercuts.

• Increased contact surface area for microretention.

Performance Benchmarks

• 1‑year retention: 85–95%.

• 3‑year retention: 70–85%.

• 5‑year retention: 55–70%.

• Early complete retention rates higher than filled sealants; partial losses often less detrimental to caries prevention.

Application Benefits

• Easier, faster placement with self‑leveling.

• Better visibility during placement.

• Reduced air entrapment.

• Lower remake rates and chair time.

• Predictable outcomes suitable for standardized protocols.

Comparative Analysis: Unfilled vs Filled Sealants

Understanding trade‑offs helps direct material selection to case needs.

Physical Property Differences

• Viscosity:

  • Unfilled: 0.5–2.0 Pa·s.

  • Filled: 3.0–10.0 Pa·s.

• Mechanical properties:

  • Flexural strength: 60–80 MPa (unfilled) vs 80–120 MPa (filled).

  • Hardness: 15–25 KHN (unfilled) vs 25–40 KHN (filled).

  • Wear resistance and fracture toughness: lower for unfilled.

Clinical Performance Comparison

• Retention (typical across studies):

  • 6 months: Unfilled ~92% vs Filled ~88%.

  • 12 months: Unfilled ~87% vs Filled ~83%.

  • 24 months: Unfilled ~78% vs Filled ~75%.

  • 36 months: Unfilled ~71% vs Filled ~69%.

• Caries prevention:

  • Both effective when retained.

  • Marginal integrity initially better with unfilled.

  • Long‑term effectiveness similar; cost‑effectiveness comparable.

Practical positioning: prefer unfilled for deep, narrow fissures, pediatric, and preventive programs; consider filled for high‑stress occlusal surfaces where wear resistance is critical.

Specific Clinical Indications

Targeted use maximizes clinical benefit and operational efficiency.

Ideal Applications

• Deep narrow fissures: complete depth sealing; reduced voids; superior adaptation.

• Primary teeth: smaller fissures; shorter service time; simpler pediatric workflow.

• Preventive programs: school‑based/high‑volume settings; simplified technique; reduced equipment needs.

Contraindications & Limitations

• Relative contraindications: high occlusal stress, bruxism, extensive occlusal surfaces, previously restored teeth, poor moisture control.

• Limitations: lower wear resistance; reduced radiopacity; monitoring challenges; potential discoloration.

Application Technique Optimization

Protocol precision improves retention and reduces remakes.

Surface Preparation

• Cleaning: fluoride‑free pumice, thorough rinse, explorer debris removal, complete dry, visual inspection.

• Etching: 35–37% phosphoric acid for 15–20 seconds; extend 2–3 mm beyond fissures; rinse equal to etch time; oil‑free air dry.

Sealant Application

• Steps:

  1. Dispense single drop.

  2. Place at the deepest fissure first.

  3. Allow 15–20 seconds undisturbed flow.

  4. Optional gentle air‑thinning for excess.

  5. Bubble removal with explorer if needed.

• Critical factors: avoid overfilling; allow natural flow; maintain a dry field; verify complete coverage.

Polymerization Protocol

• Light curing: 470 nm; ≥400 mW/cm²; <2 mm distance; ≥20 seconds; overlap for large surfaces.

• Post‑cure: remove oxygen‑inhibited layer; adjust occlusion if necessary; explorer retention check; optional fluoride application.

Quality Control & Evaluation

Standardized QA lowers variability and supports consistent outcomes.

Immediate Assessment

• Visual: full fissure coverage; no bubbles; smooth surface; appropriate thickness; intact margins.

• Tactile: explorer retention; marginal adaptation; smoothness; absence of tackiness; complete cure.

Long‑Term Monitoring

• Follow‑up schedule: 3 months → 6 months → 12 months → risk‑based intervals.

• Evaluation criteria: retention status (complete/partial/lost), marginal integrity, surface characteristics, caries presence, reapplication needs.

• Documentation: standardized forms, photo records where appropriate.

Material Science Considerations

Chairside behavior tracks with polymerization kinetics and aging dynamics.

Polymerization Kinetics

• Degree of conversion: surface ~65–75%; depth ~55–65%.

• Influences: light intensity, exposure time, distance.

• Shrinkage and stress:

  • Volume shrinkage: 3–5%.

  • Linear shrinkage: 1–2%.

  • Lower stress vs filled sealants; flow aids margin compensation.

Aging & Degradation

• Water sorption: 1–3% wt; solubility <0.5%.

• Stability: minimal thermal cycling effects; good pH stability; moderate enzymatic resistance.

• Clinical: surface wear primary; progressive marginal breakdown; rare bulk fracture; possible discoloration; retention loss over time.

Research Evidence & Clinical Studies

Evidence converges on strong early retention and equivalent caries prevention under retention.

Systematic Reviews & Meta‑Analyses

• Early retention superiority for unfilled sealants.

• Equivalent caries prevention when retained.

• Slight cost‑effectiveness advantage and lower technique sensitivity.

Clinical Trials

• Penetration depth: 25–40% greater with unfilled.

• Initial retention: 5–10% higher.

• Faster application (20–30%); higher patient preference.

Laboratory Studies

• SEM: superior wall adaptation.

• Micro‑CT: complete fissure penetration.

• Confocal microscopy: enhanced resin tag formation.

• Cross‑sectional analysis: void‑free interfaces.

Special Considerations

Unfilled sealants fit best where fast, predictable workflows are essential.

Pediatric Applications

• Faster application; clear appearance; reduced chair time.

• Better flow in small teeth; easier isolation; predictable outcomes at lower cost.

High‑Risk Populations

• Suitable for medically compromised, xerostomic, orthodontic, geriatric, and limited‑cooperation patients due to shorter protocols and robust early retention.

Future Developments

Innovation aims to preserve flow advantages while enhancing durability and therapeutic function.

Material Innovations

• Fluoride‑releasing unfilled resins.

• Self‑adhesive formulations.

• Antimicrobial additives.

• Color‑change indicators.

• Smart release systems.

Clinical Applications

• Adult preventive care expansion.

• Sealing non‑cavitated lesions.

• Orthodontic applications around brackets.

• Hypersensitivity management.

• Therapeutic sealing strategies.

Best‑Practice Recommendations

Evidence‑driven guidance for daily clinical practice and program standardization.

Clinical Guidelines

1. Prefer unfilled sealants for deep, narrow fissures and pediatric/high‑risk cases.

2. Maintain strict isolation and moisture control.

3. Allow adequate undisturbed flow time.

4. Avoid overfilling; leverage self‑leveling behavior.

5. Monitor retention at defined intervals and reapply when needed.

Evidence‑Based Protocol

1. Thorough cleaning and drying.

2. Phosphoric acid etch 15–20 seconds; extend coverage; equal rinse time.

3. Complete isolation; oil‑free air drying.

4. Controlled dispensing; deepest fissure first; bubble management.

5. Proper light curing; overlap on large surfaces.

6. Immediate QA (visual/tactile); occlusal adjustment as needed.

7. Scheduled follow‑ups; standardized documentation.

Practice‑Level Takeaways

Unfilled resin sealants deliver superior early retention and predictable workflows—ideal for pediatric and preventive programs. The trade‑off is lower wear resistance compared to filled sealants; reserve filled materials for high‑stress occlusion. Standardized protocols and QA reduce variability and remakes, supporting consistent outcomes across providers and sites.

For multi‑site practices implementing standardized preventive care, FDA/ISO‑aligned QC systems and documented protocols help ensure repeatable results. XDENT LAB’s lab‑to‑lab services support consistency through protocol training, traceable materials, and performance monitoring designed to meet U.S. standards.

XDENT LAB is an expert in Lab-to-Lab Full Service from Vietnam, with the signature services of Removable & Implant, meeting U.S. market standards – approved by FDA & ISO. Founded in 2017, XDENT LAB has grown from local root to global reach, scaling with 2 factories and over 100 employees.. Our state-of-the-art technology, certified technicians, and commitment to compliance make us the trusted choice for dental practices looking to ensure quality and consistency in their products.

Our commitments are:

• 100% FDA-Approved Materials.

• Large-Scale Manufacturing, high volume, remake rate < 1%.

• 2~3 days in lab (*digital file).

• Your cost savings 30%.

• Uninterrupted Manufacturing 365 days a year.

Contact us today to establish a strategy to reduce operating costs.

--------❃--------

Vietnam Dental Laboratory - XDENT LAB

🏢 Factory 1: 95/6 Tran Van Kieu Street, Binh Phu Ward, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

🏢 Factory 2: Kizuna 3 Industrial Park, Can Giuoc Commune, Tay Ninh Province, Vietnam

☎ Hotline: 0919 796 718 📰 Get detailed pricing