Trial reportEuropean journal of dentistry2024
Retention Rate of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Resin-Based Sealant under Field Conditions: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Trial report in European journal of dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Evaluation of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Resin-Based Sealants in Uncooperative Children: A 24-Month Randomized Controlled Trial.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cariostatic Agents: From Silver Diamine Fluoride to Emerging Bioactive Compounds.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical retention rate between hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealant placed under field setting and related factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-six children with 106 pairs of teeth in the same arch with matching International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) scores ranging from 0 to 2 were recruited. This study was a split-mouth design with each tooth in the pair randomly assigned into either hydrophobic resin-based sealant group (Concise white sealant, 3M. EPSE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) or hydrophilic resin-based sealant group (UltraSeal XT hydro sealant, Ultradent Products, South Jordan, Utah, USA). A dental therapist performed all procedures in a field setting on a mobile dental unit with a mobile saliva ejector. The retention rate was evaluated by two calibrated dentists and classified as fully retained, partially retained, and total loss. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The outcomes were analyzed using McNemar's, chi-squared, and Fisher's exact test with a significance level of 0.05.
resultsAfter 12 months, 65 children with 105 pairs of teeth remained in this study. At 8-month follow-up, fully retained, partially retained, and total loss of material were found at 82.9, 15.2, and 1.9% in the hydrophobic group and 70.5, 26.7, and 2.9% in the hydrophilic group, respectively. At the 12-month follow-up, the outcomes were reduced, respectively, to 80, 17.1, and 2.9% in the hydrophobic group and 68.6, 27.6, and 3.8% in the hydrophilic group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (
conclusionBoth hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealant can be used under field conditions, with no significant difference in terms of retention rate.
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.