Fissure sealants. Further results at 4 years

Williams, Brian; Winter, George

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4804568

Cited by 38 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A further two trials [37,38] from the hand search and reference check were included (Figure 1). Of these 19 trials, 3 were excluded [34-36], owing to lack of reported caries outcome [35] and reporting on RMGIC as a test material [34,36].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these 19 trials, 3 were excluded [34-36], owing to lack of reported caries outcome [35] and reporting on RMGIC as a test material [34,36]. Sixteen trials passed the exclusion criteria and were accepted for data extraction and quality assessment [20-33,37,38]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these, seven dichotomous datasets (DS 06,10-12,20,21,27) extracted from five trials [22-24,27,31] were in favour of resin-based fissure sealants after 2 to 3 years. Five dichotomous datasets (DS 05,17-19,30) extracted from three trials [21,26,38] were in favour of GIC-based fissure sealants after 3 to 5 years. Two continuous datasets (DS 13,14) from one trial [25] reporting on secondary outcomes, such as the DFS and DMFS increment, were also in favour of resin-based fissure sealants after 2 years.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During the new systematic literature search seven more trials [32-38] could be included for review. The reason for this was that five new trials had been published since the cut-off date of the original search; a more thorough hand search and reference check of the literature had been done, and broader inclusion criteria were used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: An update of systematic review evidence

Mickenautsch

Yengopal

2011

BMC Res Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis article constitutes a partial update of the original systematic review evidence by Yengopal et al. from 15 January 2008 (published in the Journal of Oral Science in 2009) with primary focus on research quality in regard to bias risk in trials. Its aim is to update the existing systematic review evidence from the English literature as to whether caries occurrence on pits and fissures of teeth sealed with either GIC or resin is the same.MethodsIn addition to the 12 trials included during the original systematic review, 5 new trials were identified during the database search (up to 26 August 2010) and 2 further trials were included from a hand search and reference check. Of these, 3 trials were excluded and 16 were accepted for data extraction and quality assessment. The quality of accepted trials was assessed, using updated quality criteria, and the risk of bias was investigated in more depth than previously reported. In addition, the focus of quantitative synthesis was shifted to single datasets that were extracted from the accepted trials.ResultsTwenty-six dichotomous and 4 continuous datasets were extracted. Meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis were used in combining clinically homogenous datasets. The overall outcome of the computed datasets suggest no difference between the caries-preventive effects of GIC- and resin-based fissure sealants.ConclusionsThis overall outcome is in agreement with the conclusions of the original systematic review. Although the findings of the trials identified in this update may be considered to be less affected by attrition- and publication bias, their risk of selection- and detection-/performance bias is high. Thus, verification of the currently available results requires further high quality randomised control trials.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: An update of systematic review evidence

Mickenautsch

Yengopal

2011

BMC Res Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 In the second study, AR was 6.0 with 95% CI of 2.0 to 9.9. 3 Negative/positive AR indicates that the resin composite sealants had caused less/more dentine lesions than the glass ionomer sealant.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

A Different Caries Preventive Effect of Resin-Based Versus Glass Ionomer Sealants?

Vanobbergen

2007

Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operative caries management in adults and children

Ricketts

Lamont

Innes

et al. 2013

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

250

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stepwise and partial excavation reduced the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. Therefore these techniques show clinical advantage over complete caries removal in the management of dentinal caries. There was no evidence of a difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavation, and complete caries removal, and insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease between partial caries removal and complete caries removal. When partial caries removal was carried out there was also insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference in risk of restoration failure. The no dentinal caries removal studies investigating permanent teeth had a similar result with no difference in restoration failure. The other no dentinal caries removal study, which investigated primary teeth, showed a statistically significant difference in restoration failure favouring the intervention.Due to the short term follow-up in most of the included studies and the high risk of bias, further high quality, long term clinical trials are still required to assess the most effective intervention. However, it should be noted that in studies of this nature, complete elimination of risk of bias may not necessarily be possible. Future research should also investigate patient centred outcomes.

show abstract

Fissure sealants. Further results at 4 years

Cited by 38 publications

References 0 publications

Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: An update of systematic review evidence

Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: An update of systematic review evidence

A Different Caries Preventive Effect of Resin-Based Versus Glass Ionomer Sealants?

Operative caries management in adults and children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About