ArticleCureus2026
A Prospective Clinical Evaluation of the Retention of Glass Ionomer Cement Versus Resin-Based Pit and Fissure Sealants Among School Children.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Dental caries are commonly observed in schoolchildren, particularly on the complex pit and fissure surfaces of permanent molars, which readily trap plaque and debris, making sealants a critical preventive intervention. This prospective comparative clinical study sought to assess the retention rates and clinical performance of glass ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-based sealants in a school-based setting among children aged 7-10 years. Materials and methods This study was carried out in government primary schools in Bhopal, India, from June to December 2024. Eighty children with at least one caries-free permanent first molar were non-randomly assigned to two groups (n = 40 per group). Group 1 received a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC) sealant (Fuji IX GP; GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan), applied using the press-finger technique following polyacrylic acid conditioning. Group 2 received a light-cured, fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant (Clinpro; 3M ESPE, 3M Company, St. Paul, MN), applied after phosphoric acid etching. Sealants were placed by a single operator using a portable device. Retention was evaluated at five months using a custom three-point scoring system (complete, partial, or complete loss), with high intra- and inter-examiner reliability (kappa ≥0.85). Data were analyzed using Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Kaplan-Meier survival tests (p<0.05). Results Resin-based sealants showed significantly higher retention, with 38% complete retention compared with 26% for GIC, and lower failure rates (13% versus 24%; p = 0.031). Survival analysis demonstrated greater longevity of resin-based materials, with fissure sites performing better than pits (p = 0.001). Twice-daily toothbrushing was associated with better sealant retention (p = 0.021). No significant differences were found with respect to age, sex, or diet. Conclusions Resin-based sealants demonstrated superior short-term retention and durability compared with GIC in schoolchildren. The choice of material should take into account the clinical setting and patient-related factors to optimize caries prevention.
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.