Trial reportEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2010
A two-year evaluation of four different fissure sealants.
Trial report in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Comparison of retention of resin-based filled and unfilled pit and fissure sealants using different isolation techniques.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Comparative Assessment of Compomers and Ormocers as Pit and Fissure Sealants in Permanent Molars among Children Aged 7-9 Years.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024Article
- Comparison of the Success Rate of Filled and Unfilled Resin-Based Fissure Sealants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in dentistry · 2022Article
- Microleakage of pit and fissure sealings placed after enamel conditioning with phosphoric acid or with self-etching primers/adhesives.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate fissure sealants based on Bis-GMA [Fissurit F (FF) and Fissurit FX (FFX)], compomer [Dyract Seal (DS)] and ormocer [Admira Seal (AS)] with respect to retention, marginal integrity and presence of caries after a 2-year period of follow-up.
methods80 children aged 7-13 years (mean age: 9.4 + 1.3 years), were included, giving a total of 320 first permanent molars for the study units. Clinical evaluation of the sealants was carried out to assess retention, marginal integrity and presence of caries at 12 and 24 months after initial treatment.
resultsRetention of compomer-based DS sealant was significantly lower than that of the others at the 12- and 24-month follow-up examinations (12 month, P<0.000; 24 month, P<0.006). No significant differences between the sealants were observed in marginal integrity (12 month, P>0.473; 24 month, P>0.069) or presence of caries (12 month, P>0.055; 24 month, P>0.777) at any follow-up examination.
conclusionWhile sealants composed of different resin matrices showed differences in retention, they were similar with respect to marginal integrity and presence of caries. Surface conditioning and the organic structure of the material are factors that may affect sealant retention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20403303What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.