Question · asked by 1 review
Glass ionomer-based sealant vs No comparator: Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk
- Population
- Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth
- Intervention
- Glass ionomer-based sealant
- Comparison
- No comparator
- Outcome
- Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk
Loss of complete retention was not directly associated with caries occurrence for glass-ionomer cement-based sealants in the main analysis (regression slope 0.81, 95% CI -0.07 to 1.68; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants vs No comparator (within-material surrogate-validity regression) Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · At least 24 months, Main analysis Loss of complete retention was not directly associated with caries occurrence for glass-ionomer cement-based sealants in the main analysis (regression slope 0.81, 95% CI -0.07 to 1.68; ungraded). Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) All outcomes | Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 0.81 [-0.07, 1.68] | 22 studies · 3768 participants | GRADE not reported |
Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants vs No comparator (within-material surrogate-validity regression) Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · Longest follow-up per trial, Sensitivity analysis In the sensitivity analysis, loss of complete retention was directly associated with caries occurrence for glass-ionomer cement-based sealants (regression slope 1.44, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.18; ungraded). Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) All outcomes | Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 1.44 [0.71, 2.18] | 14 studies · 2307 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. 2013 All outcomes | 21 October 2012 | Not listed | Not applicable |
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.