ReviewInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
Comparative Evaluation of the Retention Rates of Composite Resin Pit and Fissure Sealants Placed on Permanent Molars Treated with Air Abrasion and Acid Etching: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim and objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the retention rates of composite resin pit and fissure sealants placed on permanent molars prepared using air abrasion versus traditional acid etching methods. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science since inception to date, but only in English. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a 1-year follow-up, involving permanent molars treated with either air abrasion or acid etching prior to sealant placement, were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 with log odds ratios (ORs) as effect size metrics. Results: Four RCTs were included in the review. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in sealant retention between air abrasion and acid etching. The combined log OR was -0.727 [95% confidence interval (CI): -2.055 to 0.602], indicating a slight, nonsignificant trend favoring acid etching. Heterogeneity was moderate across studies. The overall quality of evidence was rated as moderate using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) framework. Conclusion: There is no clear advantage of air abrasion over acid etching regarding the retention of fissure sealants on permanent molars. While air abrasion presents a minimally invasive alternative, acid etching remains the more established and effective technique. Further high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes and standardized methodologies are needed to confirm these findings and explore other clinically relevant outcomes. How to cite this article: Raut V, Sharma D, Jain AK,
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.