ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Comparison of Retention between Conventional and Nanofilled Resin Sealants in a Paediatric Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Resin-based sealant effectiveness in high-caries risk children: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: This study compared conventional-resin-sealant versus nanofilled-sealant retention at different intervals. Methods: A double-blinded split-mouth randomized control trial was performed on sixty-two children aged from six to nine years. Participants with one pair of contralateral permanent first molars with deep fissures or noncavitated carious lesions were randomly selected for sealant application. Conventional resin sealant was applied on one molar and nanofilled sealant on the contralateral molar. Evaluations were performed at one, three, six, twelve and eighteen months to check for retention. The chi-squared test, McNemar test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Friedman test were used for statistical analysis. Results: Conventional resin sealant showed complete retention in 91.4%, 86.2%, 74.1%, 62.1% and 55.2% of the teeth, and nanofilled sealant showed complete retention in 89.7%, 81%, 77.6%, 69% and 67.2% of the teeth, at the end of 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 18 months evaluation, respectively. Each sealant exhibited a statistically significant change (p < 0.05) in the retention rate during the evaluation period. However, when both the sealants were compared with each other, there was no statistically significant difference in any phase. At the end of 18 months, caries development was observed in 13.8% of the teeth sealed with conventional sealant, and in 10.3% of the teeth sealed with nanofilled sealant. Conclusion: At eighteen months, the nanofilled resin sealant exhibited complete retention in 12% more teeth than the conventional sealant. However, the difference was not statistically significant. The nanofilled resin sealant yielded an acceptable performance in sealing the occlusal pits and fissures of mandibular permanent first molars, compared to conventional pit-and-fissure sealants.
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.