Question · asked by 1 review
ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs No comparator: Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention)
- Population
- Permanent teeth
- Intervention
- ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique)
- Comparison
- No comparator
- Outcome
- Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention)
The pooled retention rate was 75% at 1 year.
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 5 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants vs No comparator Sealant retention · Permanent teeth · 1 year, School, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 1 year The pooled retention rate was 75% at 1 year. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) All outcomes | Survival percentage 75 [51, 91] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants vs No comparator Sealant retention · Permanent teeth · 3 years, School, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 3 years The pooled retention rate was 72% at 3 years. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) All outcomes | Survival percentage 72 [72, 86] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants vs No comparator Sealant retention · Permanent teeth · 2 years, School, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 2 years The pooled retention rate was 82% at 2 years. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) All outcomes | Survival percentage 82 [77, 86] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants vs No comparator Sealant retention · Permanent teeth · 5 years, School, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 5 years The pooled retention rate was 63% at 5 years. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) All outcomes | Survival percentage 63 [56, 70] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants vs No comparator Sealant retention · Permanent teeth · 4 years, School, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 4 years The pooled retention rate was 68% at 4 years. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) All outcomes | Survival percentage 68 [61, 75] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2012 All outcomes | All publications listed until 1 February 2010 | 29 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs No comparator · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth · 1 review
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Caries-preventive effect of a one-time application of composite resin and glass ionomer sealants after 5 years. · 2006 · included by 1 of these review
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.