ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Clinical Evaluation of the Retention of Four Different Pit and Fissure Sealants on the First Permanent Molars - An Original Research.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The application of MTA in single visit apexification treatment: A prospective study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of microleakage and penetration depth of ACP containing pit and fissure sealant and flowable composite - AnJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In this study, the retention rates of four different pit and fissure sealant materials on the first permanent molars were clinically assessed and compared. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 kids aged 7 to 10 participated in a randomized controlled experiment. On their first permanent teeth, the subjects each got one of the four sealant materials (A, B, C, or D). Over the course of 24 months, the retention rates were evaluated every 6 months. The Chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used for statistical analysis. Results: At 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, the following retention rates were observed overall: A (85%, 78%, 65%, 52%), B (90%, 82%, 70%, 60%), C (78%, 70%, 55%, 42%), and D (95%, 88%, 75%, 62%). At each time point, the sealant materials showed significant variations in retention rates ( Conclusion: This study shows that different materials have different retention rates for pit and fissure sealants on first permanent molars. Higher retention rates for sealants D and B suggest that they may be superior than sealants A and C. These results highlight how crucial it is to choose the right sealant materials to guarantee long-term retention and effectiveness in avoiding dental cavities.
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.