Pit and fissure sealant retention

Abstract

Data sources

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Medline were searched. Manufacturers of dental floss were also contacted to identify any trials.

Study selection

Only clinical trials and field studies of two years or longer were included.

Data extraction and synthesis

The studies were analysed to determine the retention rates of the various materials studied (UV-light-, light- and auto-polymerising resin-based sealants, fluoride-releasing materials, compomers, flowable composites and glass-ionomer-cement-based sealants). A meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model for longitudinal logistic regression and Bayesian statistics.

Results

Ninety-eight clinical reports and 12 field trial reports were identified; 49 trials used random allocation. Auto-polymerising sealants had the observation time of up to 20 years. % year retention rates are shown in the table. Retention rates for UV-light-polymerising materials, compomers and glass-ionomer-cement-based sealants (5-year retention rates were <19.3%) were poor, while retention rates for UV-light-polymerising materials, compomers and glass ionomer cement-based sealants were classified as inferior.

Table 1

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggested that resin-based sealants can be recommended for clinical use. The faster and less error-prone clinical application of light-polymerising materials, however, makes them the preferred choice for daily dental practice.

Log in or create a free account to read this content

Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com

Access through your institution

or

Sign in or create an account

Continue with Google

Continue with ORCiD