ArticleBDJ open2022
Glass Ionomer Cement as a preventative fissure sealant for first permanent molars in high caries risk patients waiting general anaesthetic-a case series.
Article in BDJ open, 2022. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/
aimThe aim of this case series was to assess the ongoing suitability of Glass Ionomer Cement Fissure Sealants for use in paediatric patients. These had been used through the COVID pandemic due to their status as a non-aerosol-generating procedure. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective clinical review was undertaken to identify cases where GIC Fissure Sealants were used in paediatric patients awaiting exodontia general anaesthetic within Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust Community Dental Service. Identified cases were then collated to form this case series. These were reviewed regarding the number of GIC fissure sealants placed, and retention at the GA appointment and any subsequent follow-up appointments.
resultsThe results showed favourable results of GIC fissure sealants, with an average retention of 77% - in line with the wider literature results for GIC fissure sealants. DISCUSSION: The results showed a favourable retention rate, particularly given patient challenges leading to them requiring exodontia GA. Review of alternative fissure sealant materials may be beneficial on a local level to compare results with the available literature and confirm ongoing suitability.
conclusionsThe results appear to support the ongoing use of GIC-FS where close patient monitoring is available.
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.