Dataset Information

Retention of pit and fissure sealants versus flowable composites in permanent teeth: A systematic review

ABSTRACT: Objective To summarize the available clinical evidence on the relative effectiveness of retention of resin-based pit and fissure sealants (PFS) with that of flowable composites on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth when evaluated in clinical trials. Sources Electronic searches were performed in PubMed and Cochrane Library for the identification of relevant studies, from their inception until February 2020 and an additional search was done with the reference lists of included articles. Study selection The review protocol followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018112805). The risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0). Data Ten articles were considered relevant for qualitative synthesis. The data extracted from two of the included articles showed statistically significant difference between the two materials based on their retention potential, of which one article favored superior retention of flowable composites and one article favored higher retention of PFS and the other eight studies showed no significant difference between the two materials. Conclusion The current review has shown evidence suggesting the effective retention of resin-based pit-and-fissure sealants and flowable composites when applied to prevent occlusal caries in permanent molars, however, this evidence is of low quality. Carefully designed long-term clinical trials are required to support the results of this review. Clinical significance This is an important topic that would be of significant interest in the field of preventive dentistry, where sealants are the primary recommended method to prevent caries. The clinical efficacy of sealants is directly linked to their potential to retain and this systematic review focuses on comparing the relative effectiveness of resin-based pit-and-fissure-sealants with flowable composites in permanent teeth. TBC; Pit and fissure sealants; Flowable composites; Retention; Permanent dentition; systematic review

SUBMITTER: Ramesh H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7519376 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlass-ionomers are traditionally regarded to be inferior to resin as fissure sealants in protecting teeth from dental caries, due to their comparatively lower retention rate. Unlike low-viscosity glass-ionomers, high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements (HVGIC) are placed as sealants by pressing the material into pits and fissures with a petroleum-jelly-coated index finger. Hence, HVGIC sealants are assumed to penetrate pits and fissures deeper, resulting in a higher material retention rate, which may increase its caries-preventive effect.MethodsThe aim of this review was to answer the question as to whether, in patients with fully erupted permanent molar teeth, HVGIC based fissure sealants are less effective to protect against dental carious lesions in occlusal pits and fissures than resin-based fissure sealants? A systematic literature search in eight databases was conducted. Heterogeneity of accepted trials and imprecision of the established evidence were assessed. Extracted sufficiently homogenous datasets were pooled by use of a random-effects meta-analysis. Internal trial validity was evaluated. The protocol of this systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO / Nr.: CRD42015016007).ResultsSeven clinical trials were provisionally included for further review. Of these, one was excluded. Seven trial reports reporting on six trials were accepted. From these, 11 datasets were extracted and pooled in four meta-analyses. The results suggest no statistically significant differences after up to 48 months and borderline significant differences in favour of HVGIC sealants after 60 months (RR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09-0.95; p = 0.04 / RD -0.07; 95% CI: -0.14, -0.01). The point estimates and upper confidence levels after 24, 36, 48 and 60 months of RR 1.36; RR 0.90; RR 0.62; RR 0.29 and 2.78; 1.67; 1.21; 0.95, respectively, further suggest a chronological trend in favour of HVGIC above resin-based sealants. The internal trial validity was judged to be low and the bias risk high for all trials. Imprecision of results was considered too high for clinical guidance.ConclusionIt can be concluded that: (i) Inferiority claims against HVGIC in comparison to resin-based sealants as current gold-standard are not supported by the clinical evidence; (ii) The clinical evidence suggests similar caries-preventive efficacy of HVGIC and resin-based sealants after a period of 48 months in permanent molar teeth but remains challenged by high bias risk; (iii) Evidence concerning a possible superiority of HVGIC above resin-based sealants after 60 months is poor (even if the high bias risk is disregarded) due to imprecision and requires corroboration through future research.

Project description:BackgroundTooth decay is an infectious disease which, in its initial phase, leads to the formation of cavities in the teeth through decalcification of the enamel and local tissue destruction. In addition to proper oral hygiene, prophylactic sealing of fissures and cavities with a sealant is a method of preventing the development of caries. The aim of this study is to summarise the effectiveness of fissure sealing of permanent teeth with fissure sealants compared to other preventive methods or no intervention.MethodAn umbrella review was carried out to achieve the purpose of our study. Searches were performed in Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID), and Cochrane Library databases. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the AMSTAR2 tool. In addition, a manual search for recommendations/clinical practice guidelines on dental prophylaxis was performed.Results204 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. Based on the results of 3 systematic reviews, there was a statistically significant reduced odds of caries occurrence or development with prophylactic sealing of permanent teeth compared with no intervention - depending on the review and follow-up period odds ratio (OR) ranged from 0.06 [95%CI: (0.01-0.32)] to 0.28 [95%CI: (0.20-0.38)]. In the eight systematic reviews that analysed different sealants, there were no statistically significant differences between the types of materials used for prophylactic tooth sealing. For systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of fissure sealants with fluoride varnish, three reported no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of caries incidence, with only one systematic review based on 1 RCT finding a statistically significant difference in favour of fissure sealants.ConclusionCompared to the no intervention, dental sealing is an effective method for the prevention of dental caries. However, it is not possible to conclude conclusively which type of sealant and which of the available prophylactic methods is more effective in preventing caries.

Project description:BackgroundMolar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH) is a common condition among children that significantly increases the risk of caries. The objective of this research was to evaluate the clinical success of giomer- and conventional resin-based sealants applied on first permanent molars (FPMs) affected by MIH.MethodsOne-hundred FPMs with MIH which were indicated for non-invasive fissure sealant were selected in 39 children, aged 6-12 years. Using a split mouth design, the FPMs were randomized into two groups; Group 1. Resin sealant (etch-and-rinse + Conceal F) and Group 2. Giomer sealant (self-etch primer + BeautiSealant). Clinical evaluation was performed using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. The Log-rank, Fisher's exact test and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used for statistical analysis.ResultsAt 12 months, the retention rates in Group 1 and Group 2 were 68% and %8, respectively (p = 0.000). The cumulative survival rates of conventional resin sealants were significantly higher than giomer sealants for all follow-up visits (p < 0.05). In Groups 1 and 2, the distribution of unsuccessful sealants on mandibular vs maxillary FPMs were 32.1% vs 31.8% (p = 0.612) and 91.7% vs 92.3% (p = 0.664), respectively. Although the success rate was higher for teeth with white opacities or lesions with less extension in Group 1, no significant difference was found. The average survival time was found as 10.46 ± 3.21 months in Group 1 and 4.02 ± 4.43 months in Group 2.ConclusionsThe conventional resin-based sealants yielded a better clinical performance over the 12-month evaluation period than the giomer sealants which were applied with self-etch primer. The high failure rate observed in giomer sealants could be explained by the possible deficiency in the etching capacity of self-etch primer on MIH-affected teeth. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04929782. Registered 10 June 2021-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04929782 .

Project description:Purpose. This study tested the null hypothesis that different classes of direct restorative dental materials: silorane-based resin, low-shrinkage and conventional (non-flowable and flowable) resin-based composite (RBC) do not differ from each other with regard to polymerization shrinkage, depth of cure or microhardness. Methods. 140 RBC samples were fabricated and tested by one calibrated operator. Polymerization shrinkage was measured using a gas pycnometer both before and immediately after curing with 36 J/cm(2) light energy density. Depth of cure was determined, using a penetrometer and the Knoop microhardness was tested from the top surface to a depth of 5 mm. Results. Considering polymerization shrinkage, the authors found significant differences (p < 0.05) between different materials: non-flowable RBCs showed lower values compared to flowable RBCs, with the silorane-based resin presenting the smallest shrinkage. The low shrinkage flowable composite performed similarly to non-flowable with significant statistical differences compared to the two other flowable RBCs. Regarding to depth of cure, low-shrinkage flowable RBC, were most effective compared to other groups. Microhardness was generally higher for the non-flowable vs. flowable RBCs (p < 0.05). However, the values for low-shrinkage flowable did not differ significantly from those of non-flowable, but were significantly higher than those of the other flowable RBCs. Clinical Significance. RBCs have undergone many modifications as they have evolved and represent the most relevant restorative materials in today's dental practice. This study of low-shrinkage RBCs, conventional RBCs (non-flowable and flowable) and silorane-based composite-by in vitro evaluation of volumetric shrinkage, depth of cure and microhardness-reveals that although filler content is an important determinant of polymerization shrinkage, it is not the only variable that affects properties of materials that were tested in this study.

Dataset Information

Retention of pit and fissure sealants versus flowable composites in permanent teeth: A systematic review

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets