ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2020
Indirect evaluation of pit and fissure sealants: A 3D-based method validation.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2020. 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.
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present study was to compare indirect methods to assess the clinical performance of pit and fissure sealants and validate the use of 3D scanners. MATERIAL AND
methodsSample consisted of 58 plaster models of upper and lower first permanent molars, sealed with resin sealants, as well as photographs obtained during the 18-month follow-up. Pre-established criteria were applied to categorize the sealant presence/absence and marginal integrity. Two calibrated examiners performed the evaluations, independently, using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM; gold-standard), Photography, 3D (CEREC In Lab) and Stereomicroscope analysis.
resultsThe intra-examiner Spearman correlation was 94% e 97%, respectively, and the inter-examiner was 96%. Data was submitted to Kappa test, Spearman correlation and Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC). 3D and SEM presented good concordance; Stereomicroscope showed regular concordance with SEM and 3D (
conclusionsPhotography presented lower sensitivity and specificity (area=0.59). 3D method showed the best performance when compared to gold standard, exhibiting high sensitivity and specificity, therefore, it was validated as a reliable method to evaluate pit and fissure sealants.
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.