Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22552593›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2013

Efficacy of a moisture-tolerant material for fissure sealing: a prospective randomised clinical trial.

N Schlueter, J Klimek, C Ganss

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02933463 (Clinical Effectiveness of Embrace Wetbond and Clinpro as Pits and Fissure Sealants in Young Permanent Molars, Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02933463 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Clinical Effectiveness of Embrace Wetbond and Clinpro as Pits and Fissure Sealants in Young Permanent Molars, Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2016Enrolled32ConditionsCariesArmsEmbrace Wetbond, Clinpro sealant
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Moisture Tolerant Pit and Fissure Sealant: A Literature Review.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry
    Review
  18. A Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Embrace WetbondInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

N SchlueterDepartment of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Dental Clinic of the Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany. nadine.schlueter@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de
J Klimek
C Ganss

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesFissure sealings offer nearly complete protection against fissure caries, provided that they are adequately applied, for composite-based sealants with sufficient moisture control. This is not always attainable, particularly in children with low compliance. To counter this problem, a moisture-tolerant sealant has been developed. The present randomised clinical trial compared such a moisture-tolerant material (Embrace) with a conventional sealant (Helioseal). MATERIAL AND

methodsIn 55 participants (mean age, 10 ± 3 years), corresponding molar pairs were sealed with either Embrace or Helioseal. Retention, quality of sealing, and caries were clinically examined, both tactilely and visually, immediately and after 1 year.

resultsAfter 1 year, 93% of Helioseal sealings were complete, whereas 60% of Embrace sealings showed partial and 13% complete loss. The surface quality of Embrace was significantly worse than that of Helioseal. After the use of Embrace, the sealant margin was noticeable as a slight (distinct) step in 36% (15%). The visual (tactile) examination showed a rough surface in 78% (33%) in the case of Embrace. The Helioseal surfaces were shiny (smooth) in all cases (all differences between Helioseal and Embrace, p ≤ 0.001). Caries was found only after the use of Embrace (4%, n.s. compared to Helioseal).

conclusionThe moisture-tolerant material Embrace was distinctly inferior to Helioseal because Embrace showed weaknesses in retention and surface quality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Even if a moisture-tolerant sealant would be desirable in particular for children with low compliance, the tested material does not represent an alternative to the standard preparation.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildComposite ResinsDental BondingDental FissuresHumansHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsPit and Fissure SealantsProspective StudiesSingle-Blind MethodStatistics, NonparametricComposite ResinsEmbrace WetBondHeliosealPit and Fissure Sealants

Identifiers

PMID22552593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.