Trial reportScientific reports2026
Comparison of retention of resin-based filled and unfilled pit and fissure sealants using different isolation techniques.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07110701 (A Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Two Resin-Based Fissure Sealants Applied With Different Isolation Techniques), which is not on this 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.
A Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Two Resin-Based Fissure Sealants Applied With Different Isolation Techniques: An 18-Month Follow-Up Study
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the retention performance of filled and unfilled fluoride-containing resin-based fissure sealants applied to permanent first molars of children, and to assess the effect of rubber dam and cotton roll isolation techniques over an 18-month period. A total of 100 children/200 teeth participated in the study. The study was designed as a randomized, single-blinded, split-mouth trial. Mandibular permanent first molars of each patient divided into two groups: a-highly-filled pit-and-fissure sealant (Fissurit FX, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) and a-non-filled pit-and-fissure sealant (Teethmate F-1, Kuraray, Okayama, Japan), both containing fluoride. Considering the method of isolation of the dry working field, each group was further divided into two subgroups: rubber dam isolation and cotton roll isolation. The retention of the sealing material was analyzed at 6, 12, and 18 months. The primary outcome of the study was sealant retention, while the presence of caries lesions was recorded as a secondary outcome. The data were statistically analyzed at a significance level of 0.05. At the 18-month follow-up, the complete retention rates were 76.4% for Teethmate F1 (80.0% with cotton-roll isolation, 73.0% with rubberdam isolation), and 58.3% for Fissurit FX (59.5% with cotton-roll isolation, 57.7% with rubberdam isolation), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the effect of isolation methods on the retention of materials. No caries lesion was detected among all the teeth being followed up after 18 months. Within the limitations of this study, sealant retention was more strongly influenced by filler content than by the isolation method used, with unfilled fluoride-containing sealants showing superior long-term retention. Both sealant types provided effective caries prevention over the 18-month follow-up period. Both fluoride-containing filled, and non-filled pit-and-fissure sealants demonstrated comparable retention and caries-preventive effects over 18 months, regardless of the isolation method, supporting their flexible use in clinical practice.The study was registered at CliniccalTrials.gov (Registration number: NCT07110701; Date of registration: 07 August 2025).
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.