ArticleHeliyon2024
Micro-tensile bond strength of two pit and fissure sealants to intact enamel.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Nanoparticle-Enriched Sodium Fluoride Gel with and Without Er, Cr: YSGG Laser Activation: Effects on Enamel Microhardness and Sealant Bond Performance on Demineralized Enamel.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of Retention Rates of Pit and Fissure Sealants Using Flowable Composite and Moisture-tolerant Resin-based Sealant: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sealing dental pits and fissures with resin-based sealants effectively prevents occlusal dental caries. The effectiveness of resin-based pit and fissure sealants relies on maintaining a strong bond between the sealant and the enamel. Objective: This Methods: Forty extracted permanent premolar and molar teeth were divided into two groups and paired by tightly approximating two buccal surfaces to create an artificial enamel groove (fissure). Fissure sealants (Clinpro™ and Embrace™ WetBond™) were applied to the artificial enamel 'grooves' in each group. The specimens were then cut into beams with a cross-sectional area of 1 mm Results: The μTBS mean ± SD for Clinpro™ was 16.43 ± 7.08, and 10.57 ± 6.64 for Embrace™ WetBond™. There was a statistically significant difference in μTBS between Embrace™ WetBond™ and Clinpro™ (p < 0.001). There was no association between fissure sealant and failure modes (p = 0.922). Conclusion: Clinpro™ showed higher μTBS to enamel than Embrace™ WetBond™. Further studies are needed to conclude the clinical effectiveness of these sealants.
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.