Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4 questions · 6 findings · 2 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 6 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Resin-based fissure sealant vs Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants

Retention-to-caries risk ratio (RCR) · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth

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).

2 findings from 1 review

Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. 2013 All outcomes
Longest follow-up per trial · Sensitivity analysis
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
Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. 2013 All outcomes
At least 24 months · Main analysis
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

Resin-based fissure sealant vs No comparator

Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth

Loss of complete sealant retention was directly associated with caries occurrence for resin-based sealants in the main analysis (regression slope 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.23; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. 2013 All outcomes
At least 24 months · Main analysis
Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 0.89 [0.56, 1.23]
54 studies · 17377 participants
GRADE not reported
Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. 2013 All outcomes
Longest follow-up per trial · Sensitivity analysis
Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 0.53 [-0.27, 1.32]
14 studies · 3154 participants
GRADE not reported

Resin-based fissure sealant vs Fluoride varnish

DMFS (decayed, missing, filled surfaces) increment, occlusal surfaces · Schoolchildren aged 6-12 years with sound occlusal surfaces of the first permanent molars

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).

1 finding from 1 review

Pit and Fissure Sealant versus Fluoride Varnish for the Prevention of Dental Caries in School Children: A Systematic… 2022 All outcomes
24 months · School-based caries prevention; schoolchildren (included trials aged 6-9 years)
MD 0.09 [-0.03, 0.21]
2 studies · 762 participants
GRADE not reported

Resin-based fissure sealant vs Fluoride varnish

Caries incidence of first permanent molars (FPMs) · Schoolchildren aged 6-12 years with sound occlusal surfaces of the first permanent molars

Pit and fissure sealant and fluoride varnish showed no statistically significant difference in caries incidence of first permanent molars at 24 months (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.38; I2=89%; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Pit and Fissure Sealant versus Fluoride Varnish for the Prevention of Dental Caries in School Children: A Systematic… 2022 All outcomes
24 months · School-based caries prevention; schoolchildren (included trials aged 6-9 years)
RR 0.65 [0.31, 1.38]
3 studies · 1263 participants
GRADE not reported