Primary study · included by 1 review
Effectiveness of a sealant compared with no sealant in preventing enamel demineralization in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances: A prospective clinical trial
O'Reilly 2013 · O'Reilly Maria T., De Jesús Viñas Jaime, Hatch John P. · American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · 2013
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.01.021journal-article
Trial PICO
Not extracted yet. Trial-level population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and design will appear here after the trial extraction run. Until then, the reviews below describe the study.
Results
Not extracted yet. Per-trial results (events, means, effect and weight as each review's forest plot reports them) will appear here after the trial extraction run.
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment Sealant/coating agent WITH fluoride release applied to teeth with fixed appliances vs No sealant (untreated control teeth) · 3-27 months follow-up | RR 0.69 [0.46, 1.05] | 3 studies · 1467 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of new white spot lesions by visual-tactile assessment Sealant vs No sealant · 3 to 27 months | RR 0.70 [0.53, 0.93] | 6 studies · 2314 participants | Very low |
Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment Sealant/coating agent WITHOUT fluoride release applied to teeth with fixed appliances vs No sealant (untreated control teeth) · 3-27 months follow-up | RR 0.69 [0.49, 0.97] | 3 studies · 847 participants | Ungraded |
Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment Sealant or coating agent (with or without fluoride release) applied to teeth with fixed appliances vs No sealant (untreated control teeth) · 3-27 months follow-up | RR 0.70 [0.53, 0.93] | 6 studies · 2314 participants | Very low |
1 including review in total.