Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37519987›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry

Clinical Evaluation of Retention of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Pit and Fissure Sealants in Permanent First Molars: An 18 Months Follow-up: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Oma Gyati, Mansi Jain, Suma Sogi, Prinka Shahi, Priyanka Sharma, Archana Ramesh

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Oma GyatiDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research, Ambala, Haryana, India.
Mansi JainDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research, Ambala, Haryana, India.
Suma SogiDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research, Ambala, Haryana, India.
Prinka ShahiDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research, Ambala, Haryana, India.
Priyanka SharmaDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research, Ambala, Haryana, India.
Archana RameshDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research, Ambala, Haryana, India.
Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Deep pits and fissures are more prone to caries development due to their complex morphological anatomy. Preventive measures, such as pit and fissure sealants, can help in the reduction of dental caries. Conventional sealants being hydrophobic in nature, require isolation. Sealants which are hydrophilic have been introduced as an alternative where isolation is difficult to achieve. Aim: To compare and evaluate the retention and marginal integrity of hydrophilic pit and fissure sealant (Embrace WetBond) with hydrophobic pit and fissure sealant (Clinpro) in permanent first molars. Materials and methods: Sealants were applied randomly using the split-mouth design technique on 80 permanent first molars in children aged between 6 and 9 years and evaluation was done at 3, 6, 9, and 18 months. Results: The difference in retention rates between the groups was not significant using the Chi-squared test, though the WetBond group exhibited better results with 40% complete retention at the end of 18 months while in the Clinpro group, it was 37.50%. The marginal integrity in both the sealant groups was also found to be statistically insignificant. Caries incidence was found to be slightly higher in the Clinpro group. Conclusion: The clinical performance of Embrace WetBond was better when compared to Clinpro because of its moisture-tolerance capacity. Embrace Wetbond pit and fissure sealant can be the choice of material in cases where moisture control is a challenging issue. How to cite this article: Gyati O, Jain M, Sogi S,

Indexed as

ClinproEmbrace WetBondPermanent first molarsPits and fissure sealants

Identifiers

PMID37519987
PMCPMC10373778
OpenAlexW4381462905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.