Question · asked by 1 review
Resin-based fissure sealant vs Fluoride varnish: DMFS (decayed, missing, filled surfaces) increment, occlusal surfaces
- Population
- Schoolchildren aged 6-12 years with sound occlusal surfaces of the first permanent molars
- Intervention
- Resin-based fissure sealant
- Comparison
- Fluoride varnish
- Outcome
- DMFS (decayed, missing, filled surfaces) increment, occlusal surfaces
Pit and fissure sealant and fluoride varnish showed no statistically significant difference in DMFS increment at 24 months (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.40; I2=92%; not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Resin-based pit and fissure sealant (PFS) vs Fluoride varnish (FV) DMFS (decayed, missing, filled surfaces) increment, occlusal surfaces · Schoolchildren aged 6-12 years with sound occlusal surfaces of the first permanent molars · 24 months, School-based caries prevention; schoolchildren (included trials aged 6-9 years) Pit and fissure sealant and fluoride varnish showed no statistically significant difference in DMFS increment at 24 months (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.40; I2=92%; not GRADE-rated). Pit and Fissure Sealant versus Fluoride Varnish for the Prevention of Dental Caries in School Children: A… (2022) All outcomes | MD 0.09 [-0.03, 0.21] | 2 studies · 762 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 Sealant versus Fluoride Varnish for the Prevention of Dental Caries in School Children: A Systematic Review and… 2022 All outcomes | Databases searched for studies from January 1980 to May 2022 (Methods 2.6), implying a May 2022 search; the Abstract instead states 1990-2019 | 7 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
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.