ReviewCureus2026
Effectiveness of Fluoride Varnish Versus Conventional Glass Ionomer in Preventing Occlusal Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluoride varnish (FV) and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) sealants are widely used strategies for the prevention of occlusal caries in newly erupted permanent molars. However, their comparative effectiveness remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the preventive efficacy of FV versus GIC sealants in pediatric populations. PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were systematically searched through January 2026 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FV and GIC sealants. The primary outcome was the incidence of occlusal caries involving dentin ( International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) ≥4). Secondary outcomes included caries development on adjacent second molars, plaque accumulation measured by the Visible Plaque Index (VPI), and patient-reported levels of anxiety and pain during application. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using random-effects models. Five RCTs including 1,626 patients and 5,060 teeth met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of occlusal caries and second molar caries, as well as anxiety and pain levels, was comparable between the FV and GIC groups. Patients receiving FV had modestly higher plaque scores compared to those receiving GIC (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.21, p = 0.03). Both FV and GIC sealants provide effective protection against occlusal caries in newly erupted permanent molars, with FV demonstrating a slight disadvantage in plaque accumulation. These findings suggest that clinicians can select either modality based on logistical considerations, patient preference, and resource availability, without compromising clinical effectiveness.
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.