ArticleInternational journal of oral science2014
Comparison between visual clinical examination and the replica method for assessments of sealant retention over a 2-year period.
Article in International journal of oral science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indirect evaluation of pit and fissure sealants: A 3D-based method validation.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the levels of agreement and the survival rates of sealant retention for different sealing materials over a 2-year period assessed using the visual clinical examination and replica methods, sealant retention data were obtained by visual clinical examination and from replicas of the same sealed tooth at baseline and at 0.5-, 1- and 2-year evaluation points in 407 children and were compared for agreement using kappa coefficients. Survival curves of retained sealants on occlusal surfaces were created using modified categorisation (fully retained sealants and those having all pits and fissures partly covered with the sealant material versus completely lost sealants that included pit and fissure systems that had ≥1 pit re-exposed) according to the Kaplan-Meier method. The kappa coefficient for the agreement between both assessment methods over the three evaluation time points combined was 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35-0.41). More sealant retention was observed from replicas than through visual clinical examination. Cumulative survival curves at the three evaluation times were not statistically significantly higher when assessed from replicas (P=0.47). Using the replica method, more retained sealant material was observed than through visual clinical examination during the 2-year period. This finding did not result in a difference in the survival rates of sealants assessed by the two assessment methods. When replicas cast in die stone are used for assessing sealant retention, the level of reliability of the data is higher than that of data obtained through the commonly used visual clinical examination, particularly if such assessments are conducted over time.
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.