Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40655704›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025

Evaluation of Different Pit and Fissure Sealants for Caries Prevention in Community Settings.

Abdulraheem A Alwafi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Abdulraheem A AlwafiDepartment of Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pit and fissure sealants are widely used as a preventive measure against dental caries, especially in high-risk populations. Various types of sealants, including resin-based, glass ionomer, and bioactive materials, have been introduced with differing levels of retention and caries prevention efficacy. This study evaluates and compares the effectiveness of different sealant materials in preventing occlusal caries in a community-based setting. Materials and Methods: A total of 400 school-aged children (6-12 years) were enrolled and randomly assigned to three groups based on the type of pit and fissure sealant used: Group A (resin-based sealant), Group B (glass ionomer sealant), and Group C (bioactive sealant). The sealants were applied following manufacturer instructions, and retention rates along with caries incidence were assessed at 6 and 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square tests and ANOVA to determine significant differences between groups. Results: At the 6-month follow-up, retention rates were highest in Group A (85%), followed by Group C (80%) and Group B (70%). At 12 months, retention declined to 75%, 72%, and 60% for Groups A, C, and B, respectively. Caries incidence after one year was lowest in Group A (7%), followed by Group C (9%) and Group B (15%), with statistically significant differences ( Conclusion: All three types of sealants provided caries prevention benefits, but resin-based and bioactive sealants exhibited better retention and efficacy over time. Community-based programs should prioritize these materials for effective long-term caries prevention in children. Further research is needed to assess cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes in diverse populations.

Indexed as

Bioactive sealantcaries preventioncommunity dentistryglass ionomer sealantpit and fissure sealantsresin-based sealant

Identifiers

PMID40655704
PMCPMC12244700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.