Trial reportClinical oral investigations2017
Effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants bonded with different adhesive systems: a prospective randomized controlled 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. It is linked to trial NCT05606874 (Retention Rate and Caries Preventive Effect of Preheated Flowable Resin Composite Used as a Pit and Fissure Sealant Versus Conventional Resin-based Fissure Sealant in Patients With Permanent Molars With Deep Pit and Fissure Over One Year Follow up. A Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this 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.
Retention Rate and Caries Preventive Effect of Preheated Flowable Resin Composite Used as a Pit and Fissure Sealant Versus Conventional Resin-based Fissure Sealant in Patients With Permanent Molars With Deep Pit and Fissure Over One Year Follow up. A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of microleakage and remineralization potential of a fissure sealant containing microcapsules on artificial enamel lesions: with and without adhesive application.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of universal adhesive systems on the enamel etching patterns, shear bond strength, adhesive remnant index and failure type of pit and fissure sealants applied to Er: YAG laser etched enamel: an in vitro study.Lasers in medical science · 2025Article
- Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Using self-etch adhesive agents with pit and fissure sealants. In vitro analysis of shear bond strength, adhesive remnant index and enamel etching patterns.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric 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
- Resin-Based Sealant with Bioactive Glass and Zwitterionic Material for Remineralisation and Multi-Species Biofilm Inhibition.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Pit and Fissure Sealants-A Comprehensive Review.Dentistry journal · 2018Review
- Sealing effectiveness of fissure sealant bonded with universal adhesive systems on saliva-contaminated and noncontaminated enamel.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2018Article
- One-year follow-up of microscopical and clinical behavior of bioactive self-etching resin sealant.Journal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
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
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate and compare the clinical retention of a resin-based fissure sealant placed with an intermediate layer of etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etch (SE) adhesives. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred twenty-eight sealants were placed in 57 children with previously unsealed, caries-free permanent first molars, employing a split-mouth design. The teeth were randomized into four groups (n = 57 teeth/groups) according to the adhesive system placed under the tested sealant (Delton FS+; Dentsply). Group 1 (control): no bonding agent (conventional acid-etch sealant); group 2: prior enamel etch + ER adhesive (XP Bond; Dentsply); group 3: SE adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond; Kuraray) without prior etching; and group 4: prior enamel etch + SE adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). Clinical assessments were performed according to modified USPHS criteria at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The data were analyzed statistically using Fisher's Exact test, the Kaplan-Meier analysis, and the Log-rank test.
resultsAt 24 months, sealants bonded with XP Bond and Clearfil SE Bond with prior enamel etching showed similar retention rates (p > 0.05), and these rates were significantly better than the rates of the conventional sealant and Clearfil-SE groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the retention rates of the latter two groups (p > 0.05). The cumulative survival rates on palatal/buccal surfaces showed similar outcomes as with occlusal surfaces: XP Bond (94%), Clearfil SE Bond + acid-etch (94%), conventional sealant (52%), and Clearfil SE Bond only (37%).
conclusionsApplication of the tested ER adhesive and the SE adhesive with enamel etching significantly improved the clinical retention of Delton-FS over the 24-month period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of a resin-based fissure sealant placed with ER or SE adhesive with prior acid-etching yielded better retention than the conventional sealant over the 24-month period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27900529What 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.