ArticleFrontiers in dentistry
In Vitro Microleakage Comparison of Flowable Nanocomposites and Conventional Materials Used in Pit and Fissure Sealant Therapy.
Article in Frontiers in dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Novel Pit and Fissure Sealant Infused with Silver Nanoparticles in Comparison with Conventional Pit and Fissure Sealant in both Primary and Permanent Teeth: An SEM and Stereomicroscope Study.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of microleakage and penetration depth of ACP containing pit and fissure sealant and flowable composite - AnJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Comparison of Retention between Conventional and Nanofilled Resin Sealants in a Paediatric Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Lingual retainer materials: Comparative evaluation of wear resistance of flowable nanocomposites and universal composite: AnDental research journal · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPit and fissure sealants are recognized as an effective preventive approach in pediatric dentistry. Composite resin is the most commonly used sealant material. Adding nanoparticles to composite resin could result in production of flowable composite with higher mechanical properties and better flowability than previous sealants. This study aimed to compare the microleakage of a flowable nanocomposite and materials conventionally used as pit and fissure sealants. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 185 extracted mandibular third molar teeth were selected and randomly divided into 5 groups (n=36): flowable nanocomposite, flowable composite, filled sealants, nano-filled sealants, and unfilled sealants. Five teeth were reserved for examination under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The samples were thermocycled (5-55°C, 1-minute dwell time) for 1000 cycles and immersed in 0.2% fuchsine solution for 24 hours. Teeth were sectioned buccolingually. Microleakage was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by means of dye penetration and SEM. Data were analyzed using chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis, and Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney U tests.
conclusionUse of flowable and nanofilled flowable composites (but not unfilled resin-based fissure sealant) is recommended for sealing of pits and fissures of molars.
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.