ReviewDental research journal2026
Hydrophobic or hydrophilic fissure sealants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Dental research journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of the study was to evaluate caries development and retention rate of resin-based hydrophilic and hydrophobic fissure sealants based on the randomized clinical trials in which the investigators have studied this subject. Materials and Methods: A literature screen was conducted in some databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, to select randomized clinical trials that compared the caries development/retention rate of resin-based hydrophilic and hydrophobic fissure sealants until March 2025. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2), and the meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: A total of 20,945 articles were initially retrieved for screening, and fourteen studies were identified as eligible for inclusion in the quantitative analysis. The RoB assessment showed a high risk of bias in 5 studies, some concerns in 5, and low risk in 4. Caries development was reported in 11 studies, and retention rate in 14. The meta-analysis results showed a statistically significant difference for caries development (odds ratio [OR]: 0.490, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.277-0.867; Conclusion: It could be concluded that hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based fissure sealants are approximately equal in caries development and retention rate, with very low quality of evidence. Clinical Relevance: In clinical practice, resin-based hydrophilic fissure sealants could be applied on susceptible tooth surfaces; in case of difficult isolation, with an almost equal clinical success for hydrophobic fissure sealants.
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.