Question · asked by 1 review
Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant: Dentine caries in permanent molars (24 months)
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant Dentine caries in permanent molars · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years) · 12-72 months Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes | Inconsistent effect (differences in products, comparisons, outcomes, outcome reporting times, background fluoride and age groups); 21 trials (3883 participants randomised); very low quality | 21 studies · 3883 participants | Very low |
Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant Dentine caries in permanent molars · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years) · 12-84 months Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth (2013) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD001830.PUB4, superseded | Inconsistent effect (differences in comparisons, outcomes, outcome reporting times and background fluoride exposure); 15 trials (2939 participants randomised); very low quality | 15 studies · 2939 participants | Very low |
Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant Dentine caries in permanent molars · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years) · 24 months-7 years Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth (2008) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD001830.PUB3, superseded | Divergent across 8 studies (e.g. Poulsen RR 3.39, Kervanto-Seppala RR 3.86 favour resin; Arrow RR 0.19, Beiruti RR 0.28 favour glass ionomer; Forss RR 1.44 no difference); no meta-analysis | 8 studies | GRADE not reported |
Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant Dentine caries in permanent molars · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years) · 24-84 months Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth (2004) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD001830.PUB2, superseded | Conflicting: Poulsen 2001 RR 3.39 (1.98-5.79) and Songpaisan 1995 MD -0.47 (-0.63 to -0.31) favour resin; Arrow 1995 RR 0.19 (0.09-0.43) favours glass ionomer; no meta-analysis | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2016-08 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.