Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35750728›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2022

Are sealants effective in preventing caries in primary molars?

Neeraj Gugnani, Shalini Gugnani

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Neeraj GugnaniDepartment of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, DAV (C) Dental College Yamunanagar, Haryana, India.
Shalini GugnaniDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Implantology, DAV (C) Dental College Yamunanagar, Haryana, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data sources Four electronic databases, including Cochrane Oral Health's Trial Register, Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline and Embase were searched for finding the relevant literature. Two trial registries and references of the included papers were also searched.Study selection Both parallel-group and split-mouth randomised control trials were included. These involved comparison of different types of dental sealants or their comparison with a placebo/no sealant. There was no restriction regarding language or publication date.Data extraction and synthesis Two authors independently extracted the data from the selected papers which included study characteristics, details about participants, intervention, control, outcomes etc. Owing to inherent heterogeneity and inability to pool up the data, meta-analysis was not carried out and the results were summarised using narrative synthesis.Results A total of nine studies were included. Irrespective of the type of sealants, all the included studies have depicted the direction of the effect favouring the sealant use but the evidence is very low. Individual studies that compared sealants with placebo exhibited better performance by glass ionomer cement-based sealants (Odds ratio [OR] = 0.033; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.007-0.149) than resin-based sealants (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.41-1.42).Conclusions Low quality evidence was found regarding the effectiveness of sealants for prevention of caries in primary molars.

Indexed as

Dental CariesPit and Fissure SealantsDental Caries SusceptibilityDentition, PermanentHumansMolarPit and Fissure Sealants

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.