Trial reportClinical oral investigations2017
Impact of the intermediary layer on sealant retention: a randomized 24-month clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- A concise review of dental sealants in caries management.Frontiers in oral health · 2023Review
- Resin infiltration of deproteinised natural occlusal subsurface lesions improves initial quality of fissure sealing.International journal of oral science · 2017Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aims of this study were to assess long-term impact of tooth eruption stages (ES) on sealant retention on occlusal surfaces previously coated with intermediary bonding layer and to determine caries prevention. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-five school children were selected (aged 6-10 years), with four non-carious permanent first molar in different ES (OP (operculum present), ME (marginal edge), CE (completely erupted)). Split-mouth and single-blind study design was used. The teeth (260) were randomly selected according to treatment (sealant/technique): F (Fluroshield), H (Helioseal Clear Chroma), SF (Single Bond + F), EH (Excite + H). Sealant retention, marginal integrity, discoloration, and caries prevention were assessed after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by calibrated examiner (Spearman = 0.91) using visual inspection. Data were submitted to the Cox proportional hazard model (survival analysis) and Likelihood ratio χ
resultsAt baseline, ES was 20 % in OP, 54 % in ME, and 26 % in CE. There was no significant difference on sealant retention between the treatments (p = 0.2774). However, significant differences were found regarding the ES on sealant retention (p = 0.0041). The CE stage showed the highest retention survival rate during the 24 months. The overall sealant prevention average was found to be about 99.4 % and showed no difference between the groups.
conclusionsEruption stages affect sealant retention irregardless of the intermediate layer and type of sealant. However, there was caries prevention on tooth occlusal surfaces after 24 months, regardless of treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Sealing is recommended to prevent occlusal caries of newly erupted teeth in high-caries-risk patients. However, its application is critical on moisture limited control surfaces independently of sealer material and technique.
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.