Question · asked by 1 review
Resin-based fissure sealant plus fluoride varnish vs Fluoride varnish: Changes in decayed, missing and filled (DMF) figures at whole-mouth level
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Resin-based fissure sealant plus fluoride varnish vs Fluoride varnish alone Changes from baseline in decayed, missing and filled (DMF) figures at whole-mouth level · Children and adolescents from the general population, younger than 20 years of age at the start of the study · 2 years Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of… (2020) · Cochrane All outcomes | Splieth 2001: whole-mouth mean DMFS increased from 0.2 to 0.6 after 1 year and to 1.1 after 2 years; most caries on occlusal surfaces of first permanent molars (50.9%). | 1 study · 92 participants | 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 versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes | 19 March 2020 | 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.