What do systematic reviews say?

Intervention not reported

The intervention led to lower development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures; GRADE not reported.

• Caries-Preventive Effect of High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer and Resin-Based Fissure Sealants on Permanent Teeth: A… 2016 All outcomes

  60 months
  RD -0.07 [-0.14, -0.01]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

The intervention showed no clear difference in caries occurrence on sealed teeth; GRADE not reported.

• The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants… 2013 All outcomes

  12 months, original datasets only (permanent teeth)
  RR 2.61 [0.61, 11.14]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant

Glass-ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants showed no statistically significant difference in caries occurrence on sealed permanent teeth at 12 months (no GRADE rating).

• The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants… 2013 All outcomes

  12 months · 12 months (permanent teeth)
  RR 1.66 [0.75, 3.68]
  5 studies · 1952 participants
  GRADE not reported
• The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants… 2013 All outcomes

  6 months · 6 months (permanent teeth)
  RR 2.04 [0.62, 6.70]
  6 studies · 1944 participants
  GRADE not reported
• The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants… 2013 All outcomes

  24 months · 24 months (permanent teeth)
  RR 1.51 [1.00, 2.28]
  8 studies · 2810 participants
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

The intervention showed no clear difference in caries occurrence on sealed teeth; GRADE not reported.

• The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants… 2013 All outcomes

  6 months, original datasets only (permanent teeth)
  RR 1.81 [0.39, 8.37]
  3 studies
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

• Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. 2013 All outcomes

  Main analysis; GIC-based (Mat 2)
  Mean risk (proportion of sealed teeth) 0.84 (SD 0.19)
  22 studies
  GRADE not reported

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

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

  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

Glass ionomer-based sealant vs No comparator

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

  At least 24 months · Main analysis
  Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 0.81 [-0.07, 1.68]
  22 studies · 3768 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) 1.44 [0.71, 2.18]
  14 studies · 2307 participants
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

• Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. 2013 All outcomes

  Main analysis; resin-based (Mat 1)
  Mean risk (proportion of sealed teeth) 0.36 (SD 0.23)
  54 studies
  GRADE not reported

Resin-based fissure sealant vs No comparator

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).

• 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

Intervention not reported

The intervention led to higher caries occurrence on sealed teeth; GRADE not reported.

• The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants… 2013 All outcomes

  24 months, original datasets only (permanent teeth)
  RR 2.10 [1.23, 3.58]
  4 studies
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

• Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. 2013 All outcomes

  Main analysis; resin-based (Mat 1)
  Mean risk (proportion of sealed teeth) 0.12 (SD 0.14)
  54 studies
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

• Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. 2013 All outcomes

  Main analysis; GIC-based (Mat 2)
  Mean risk (proportion of sealed teeth) 0.12 (SD 0.08)
  22 studies
  GRADE not reported