Trial reportOdontology2026
Clinical performance of BioCoat™ and Fissurit FX: a randomized 18-month split-mouth study.
Trial report in Odontology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pit and fissure sealants (PFS) are effective in preventing occlusal caries. This randomized split-mouth clinical study aimed to compare the 18-month clinical performance of the bioactive resin-based PFS (BioCoat™) with a fluoride-containing conventional resin-based PFS (Fissurit FX) and to assess the influence of patient-related factors on material success. Sixty-three pediatric patients (aged 7-9) requiring non-invasive PFS were included. BioCoat™ (Group 1) and Fissurit FX (Group 2) were applied to contralateral mandibular permanent first molars. Clinical evaluations were performed at 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, and 18th months using modified USPHS criteria. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and logistic regression were applied. At 18 months, success rates were 90.2% for BioCoat™ and 88.2% for Fissurit FX, with no statistically significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). Both materials showed similar performance in marginal discoloration-adaptation, retention and secondary caries (p > 0.05). Median survival times were 17.72 months (BioCoat™) and 17.49 months (Fissurit FX), showing no significant difference (p = 0.744). No significant effect of patient-related factors on material success was determined (p > 0.05). BioCoat™ demonstrated comparable long-term clinical performance to Fissurit FX. Its bioactive properties may provide additional preventive benefits, supporting its safe use in pediatric dentistry.
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.