ArticlePloS one2026
The effects of material type, salivary contamination and adhesive application on the performance of pit and fissure sealants.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the effects of sealant material type, adhesive application and saliva contamination on the microleakage, shear bond strength (SBS), and interfacial adaptation of pit and fissure sealants. A total of 160 extracted human molars were assigned to eight groups according to sealant type (resin-based, glass ionomer-based, or flowable composite), adhesive application, and contamination condition. Microleakage and unfilled areas at the enamel-sealant interface were assessed by dye penetration and image analysis software after thermocycling. SBS was measured using a universal testing machine, and failure modes were categorized under a stereomicroscope. Interfacial adaptation was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed with Fisher's exact, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and ANOVA tests (α = 0.05). Resin-based and flowable composite sealants exhibited significantly lower microleakage and higher SBS than glass ionomer-based materials (p < 0.05). Adhesive application enhanced SBS but slightly increased microleakage. Saliva contamination markedly reduced bond strength and increased leakage, whereas re-etching effectively restored enamel receptivity and sealing ability. SEM images revealed better adaptation and continuous margins in resin-based and flowable composites, whereas contaminated groups exhibited irregular interfaces and micro gaps. Sealant performance is strongly influenced by material viscosity, surface pretreatment, and contamination control. Re-etching after contamination restores enamel-bonding potential, while adhesive-assisted flowable composites achieve the best combination of sealing, retention, and interfacial adaptation, suggesting their clinical advantage in moisture-compromised environments.
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.