Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM26799812
Caries-Preventive Effect of High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer and Resin-Based Fissure Sealants on Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.
Mickenautsch Steffen, Yengopal Veerasamy · PloS one · 2016 · PubMed · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146512
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
7
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 5 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients of any age with fully erupted permanent molar teeth | Children (mean age about 6 to 8 years) with fully erupted permanent first molars (6 trials, 7 reports) |
| Intervention | High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) fissure sealants | HVGIC sealants by press-finger technique (Fuji IX in 2 trials, Ketac Molar / Ketac Molar Easymix in 4 trials) |
| Comparison | Resin-based fissure sealants | Resin-based sealants (fluoride-containing in 4 trials; non-fluoride in 2 trials) |
| Outcomes | Number of teeth developing carious lesions on previously sealed occlusal pits and fissures (failures) out of evaluated teeth | Carious lesion development on sealed occlusal surfaces; 11 datasets pooled in 4 meta-analyses |
| Study designs | Not specified | School- and clinic-based settings in Syria, Brazil (x2), China (x2), and Turkey |
| Timing | Not specified (datasets grouped by length of follow-up for pooling) | Follow-up 24, 36, 48, and 60 months |
Search date: Not specified in main text (per-database search dates in S1 File, Section A). Databases: CENTRAL (via Cochrane Library); MEDLINE (via PubMed); BioMed Central; Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ); Sabinet; IndMed; OpenSIGLE; Google Scholar
Questions and results
High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) fissure sealant placed by press-finger technique vs Resin-based fissure sealant
Population: Children with fully erupted permanent first molar teeth (mean age about 6 to 8 years)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures 48 months At 48 months, no statistically significant difference was found between HVGIC and resin-based sealants (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.21); evidence ungraded and at high risk of bias. Source: Fig 2 (forest plot); Results (Data Analysis) · same question in other reviews | RR 0.62 [0.31, 1.21] | 2 studies · 1007 evaluated sealed teeth participants | Ungraded |
Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures 60 months At 60 months, HVGIC sealants showed a borderline significant reduction in carious lesions versus resin-based sealants (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.95; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.01); evidence ungraded and at high risk of bias. Source: Fig 2 (forest plot); Results (Data Analysis) · same question in other reviews | RR 0.29 [0.09, 0.95] -0.07 [-0.14, -0.01] proportion of sealed teeth (risk difference; illustrative 4 vs 13 per 100) | 2 studies · 205 evaluated sealed teeth participants | Ungraded |
Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures 36 months At 36 months, no statistically significant difference was found between HVGIC and resin-based sealants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.67); evidence ungraded and at high risk of bias. Source: Fig 2 (forest plot); Results (Data Analysis) · same question in other reviews | RR 0.90 [0.49, 1.67] | 3 studies · 600 evaluated sealed teeth participants | Ungraded |
Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures 24 months At 24 months, HVGIC and resin-based fissure sealants showed no statistically significant difference in caries on sealed permanent molars (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.78); evidence ungraded and at high risk of bias. Source: Fig 2 (forest plot); Results (Data Analysis) · same question in other reviews | RR 1.36 [0.66, 2.78] | 4 studies · 1742 evaluated sealed teeth participants | Ungraded |
Comparison
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures 60 months | RD -0.07 [-0.14, -0.01] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMSTAR 2 appraisal
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Yes | Partial Yes | no |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | No | Yes | no |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |
Included primary studies 7
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beiruti et al. 2006 Caries-preventive effect of a one-time application of composite resin and glass ionomer sealants after 5 years. PMID:16352882 | 1 other review | Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Chen et al. 2012 Caries-preventive effect of sealants produced with altered glass-ionomer materials, after 2 years. PMID:22300651 | 1 other review | Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Barja-Fidalgo et al. 2009 Effectiveness of a glass ionomer cement used as a pit and fissure sealant in recently erupted permanent first molars. PMID:19341577 | this review only | Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hilgert et al. 2015 Caries-preventive Effect of Supervised Toothbrushing and Sealants. PMID:26116491 | this review only | Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Liu et al. 2014 Glass ionomer ART sealant and fluoride-releasing resin sealant in fissure caries prevention--results from a randomized clinical trial. PMID:24886444 | this review only | Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Oba et al. 2009 Comparison of caries prevention with glass ionomer and composite resin fissure sealants. PMID:19933027 | this review only | Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Zhang et al. 2014 Do light cured ART conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer sealants perform better than resin-composite sealants: a 4-year randomized… PMID:24602520 | this review only | Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match).