ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
3-Year Clinical Performance of a New Pit and Fissure Sealant.
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 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants in primary and permanent teeth of children and adolescents: an umbrella review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of retention rates of silver nanoparticles-based fissure sealant and conventional resin-based sealant: a one-year randomized clinical trial.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Trial
- Guardians' preferences for pit and fissure sealing services in China: evidence from a discrete choice experiment.BMC oral health · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this 3-year, randomized clinical trial (RCT) in split-mouth design was to explore the clinical survival of a Bis-GMA-free pit and fissure sealant (Helioseal F Plus) in comparison to a control material (Helioseal F). The initial population consisted of 92 adolescents. Follow-ups took place after one year (N = 85), two years (N = 82) and three years (N = 76) after application. At each examination, sealant retention and the presence of caries were recorded. The statistical analysis included the calculation of Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank tests and a Cox proportional hazard regression model. No adverse events were documented. The proportion of completely intact sealants and those with minimal loss was almost identical in both groups, at 84.3% (Helioseal F; 113/134) and 81.7% (Helioseal F Plus; 107/131) after three years of observation. The regression analysis revealed an operator dependency, but no significant differences were found between the materials, the study centers, the chosen isolation technique, patient age or sex. After 3 years, 91.7% and 100.0% of all molars were free of non-cavitated carious lesions or carious cavities, respectively. It can be concluded that the new fissure sealing material can be considered as at least equivalent in terms of survival and retention behavior compared to the predecessor material.
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.