Question · asked by 1 review
Resin-based fissure sealant vs Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants: Retention-to-caries risk ratio (RCR)
- Population
- Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth
- Intervention
- Resin-based fissure sealant
- Comparison
- Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants
- Outcome
- Retention-to-caries risk ratio (RCR)
In the sensitivity analysis, the difference in retention-to-caries risk ratio between resin- and glass-ionomer cement-based sealants was not statistically significant (p = 0.069; ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Resin-based fissure sealants vs Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants Retention-to-caries risk ratio (RCR) · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · Longest follow-up per trial, Sensitivity analysis In the sensitivity analysis, the difference in retention-to-caries risk ratio between resin- and glass-ionomer cement-based sealants was not statistically significant (p = 0.069; ungraded). Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) All outcomes | Mean RCR (retention-to-caries risk ratio); t-test of difference Resin vs GIC difference not statistically significant (p=0.069); sensitivity-analysis mean RCRs not reported | 14 studies | GRADE not reported |
Resin-based fissure sealants vs Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants Retention-to-caries risk ratio (RCR) · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · At least 24 months, Main analysis The mean retention-to-caries risk ratio differed significantly between resin- and glass-ionomer cement-based sealants (9.64 vs 13.68; p = 0.017), indicating non-compliance with the Prentice criterion (ungraded). Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) All outcomes | Mean RCR (retention-to-caries risk ratio); t-test of difference Resin mean RCR 9.64 (SD 24.58) vs GIC 13.68 (SD 13.72); p=0.017 | 62 studies | 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.