ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2013
Strong evidence for the effectiveness of resin based sealants.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioactive and Ion-releasing materials in minimum intervention dentistry: a clinical pathway from prevention to restorative treatment.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Safety and effectiveness of an innosvative SS-suction device to control moisture in dental procedures.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Comparison of Fissure Sealant Chair Time and Patients' Preference Using Three Different Isolation Techniques.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Retention of pit and fissure sealants versus flowable composites in permanent teeth: A systematic review.Heliyon · 2020Review
- Improvement of Pit-and-Fissure Sealant Bonding to Enamel with Subpressure Treatment.BioMed research international · 2019Article
- Hierarchizing caries risk factors among first-year university students in Nice (France): a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2017Article
- The Use of Pit and Fissure Sealants-A Literature Review.Dentistry journal · 2017Review
- In Vitro Microleakage Comparison of Flowable Nanocomposites and Conventional Materials Used in Pit and Fissure Sealant Therapy.Frontiers in dentistryArticle
- Sealants revisited: An efficacy battle between the two major types of sealants - A randomized controlled clinical trial.Dental research journalArticle
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesCochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline via OVID, EMBASE via OVID; SCISEARCH, CAplus, INSPEC, NTIS and PASCAL via STN Easy and DARE, NHS EED, HTA (all to September/ November 2012) and ClinicalTrials.gov (to July 2012). There were no restrictions on language or date of publication. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of at least 12 months duration comparing no sealant with sealant, or different types of sealants, for preventing caries of occlusal or approximal surfaces of premolar or molar teeth in children and adolescents under 20 years of age. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening of search results, data extraction and assessment of trial quality (using GRADE methods) were by two reviewers independently.
resultsThere were 34 trials of children aged five to 16 years, with 12 trials (2575 participants) comparing sealants with no sealant, 21 trials (3202 participants) comparing one sealant with another and one trial (752 participants) comparing two types of sealant with no sealant.Resin sealants compared with no sealants prevented caries in the first permanent molars of children five to 10 years old (six trials at low risk of bias with two years follow up), (odds ratio (OR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.19). At 48 to 54 months follow-up, the caries preventive effect was maintained (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.28) although there were only four trials (two were at low and two at high risk of bias).No conclusions could be drawn as to whether glass ionomer sealants compared with no sealants prevented caries at 2 year follow-up. The mean difference in DFS was -0.18, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.03.The relative effectiveness of one type of sealant compared to a different type of sealant was inconclusive as there was great variation in comparisons, outcomes, times of outcomes and background fluoride levels in the 21 studies. There was insufficient evidence for the relative superiority of glass ionomer and resin sealants (very low event rate in many of the 15 trials). There were inconsistent results for resin-modified glass ionomer sealants compared with resin sealants. No difference in caries increments were found in the two small trials of polyacid-modified resin sealants compared with resin sealants.
conclusionsSealants compared with no sealants, on the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars in children and adolescents, are effective at reducing caries up to 48 months. There is less evidence for longer term follow-up and little for the relative effectiveness of sealing in less high caries risk children. No conclusions could be drawn on the relative effectiveness of different types of sealants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.