Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents

Anneli Ahovuo‐Saloranta; Anne Hiiri; Anne Nordblad; Marjukka Mäkelä; Helen V Worthington

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub3

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Caries yes/no at 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 2 Caries yes/no at 24 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 3 Caries yes/no at 36 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 4 Caries yes/no at 48‐54 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 5 12‐13 years ‐ 2‐year DFS increment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 6 Caries yes/no at 9 years.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Glass ionomer versus no treatment, Outcome 1 12‐13 years ‐ 2‐year DFS increment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 1 Caries yes/no at 24 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 2 Caries yes/no at 36‐44 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 3 12‐13 years ‐ 2‐year DFS increment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 4 Caries yes/no at 5 years.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 5 Caries yes/no at 7 years.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Polyacid‐modified resin composite versus resin sealant, Outcome 1 Caries yes/no at 24 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Table 1. Data from split‐mouth studies

Comparison	Study	Both sound (+)	FS (+) control (‐)	FS (‐) control (+)	Both carious (‐)	RR (FE: 95% CI)	Het. Chi²
Resin FS versus no treatment: 12 months	Bojanini 1976	188	79	6	2	0.099 (0.049, 0.201)
	Charbeneau 1979	104	82	5	11	0.172 (0.107, 0.276)
	Sheykholeslam 1978	132	49	2	3	0.096 (0.040, 0.229)
POOLED						0.13 (0.09, 0.20)	2.34, 2 df, P = 0.31
Resin FS versus no treatment: 24 months	Brooks 1979	144	64	3	22	0.29 (0.206, 0.411)
	Charbeneau 1979	53	100	4	29	0.256 (0.188, 0.348)
	Sheykholeslam 1978	85	79	1	10	0.124 (0.071, 0.216)
POOLED						0.22 (0.15, 0.34)	6.63, 2 df, P = 0.04
Resin FS versus no treatment: 36 months	Brooks 1979	111	63	4	23	0.314 (0.225, 0.438)
	Charbeneau 1979	45	96	5	47	0.364 (0.289, 0.457)
	Hunter 1988	302	163	9	35	0.222 (0.169, 0.293)
POOLED						0.30 (0.22, 0.40)	7.35, 2 df, P = 0.03
Resin FS versus no treatment: 48‐54 months	Brooks 1979	61	67	3	37	0.385 (0.298, 0.496)
	Charbeneau 1979	37	81	3	64	0.462 (0.385, 0.554)
	Bravo 2005 (parallel group study )					0.24 (0.12, 0.45)
POOLED						0.40 (0.31, 0.51)	4.52, 2 df, P = 0.10
Glass ionomer versus resin sealant: 12 months	No studies
Glass ionomer versus resin sealant: 24 months	Poulsen 2001	191	2	9	1	3.33 (1.017, 10.922) P = 0.065
	Ganesh 2006	100	0	0	0	Not estimable
	Mills 1993	59	0	0	0	Not estimable
Glass ionomer versus resin sealant: 36‐44 months	Poulsen 2001 (resin better)	156	6	37	7	3.385 (1.978, 5.793) P < 0.001
	Arrow 1995 (ionomer better)	378	28	3	3	0.194 (0.087, 0.431) P < 0.001
	Kervanto‐Seppälä 2008 (resin better)	625	5	25	2	3.857 (1.767, 8.422) P < 0.001
Glass ionomer versus resin sealant: 7 years	Forss 1998 (no difference)	66	8	15	8	1.438 (0.881, 2.346) P = 0.14
PMRC versus resin sealant: 24 months	Lampa 2004 (no difference)	41	3	0	0	OR = 0.23 (0.03, 1.76) P = 0.16
PMRC versus resin sealant: 24 months	Güngör 2004 (no difference)	50	10	8	2	OR = 0.80 (0.33, 1.97) P = 0.63
POOLED						OR = 0.61 (0.23, 1.66) P = 0.33	1.19, 1 df, P = 0.28

Table 1. Data from split‐mouth studies

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 2. Data from parallel group study (Songpaisan 1995)

Comparison	Control number	Control mean	Control SD	Test number	Test mean	Test SD	Mean DFS diff.	95% CI	P value
Control versus resin	143	0.70	0.96	133	0.05	0.57	0.65	0.47 to 0.83	< 0.001
Control versus GI	143	0.70	0.96	261	0.52	1.09	0.18	‐0.034 to 0.39	0.09
Resin versus GI	133	0.05	0.57	261	0.52	1.09	‐0.47	‐0.63 to ‐0.31	< 0.001

Table 2. Data from parallel group study (Songpaisan 1995)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 3. Sealant retention

Time	Study	Sealant	Complete (%)	Partial (%)	Lost (%)	Decayed or filled (%)	Total (%)
Sealant retention: 12 months	Bojanini 1976	Delton (resin)	91	6	3		= 100
	Charbeneau 1979	Kerr (resin)	79	17	4		= 100
	Sheykholeslam 1978	Delton (resin)	92	5	0	3	= 100
Sealant retention: 24 months	Brooks 1979	Delton (resin)	84	10	6		= 100
	Charbeneau 1979	Kerr (resin)	71	18	11		= 100
	Sheykholeslam 1978	Delton (resin)	85	7	2	6	= 100
	Songpaisan 1995	Fuji III (ionomer)	< 1
	Songpaisan 1995	Delton (resin)	85
	Poulsen 2001	Fuji III (ionomer)	9	9	82		= 100
	Poulsen 2001	Delton (resin)	80	7	13		= 100
	Ganesh 2006	Fuji VII (ionomer)	2	68	30		= 100
	Ganesh 2006	Concise (resin)	4	66	30		= 100
	Mills 1993	Ketac‐Silver (ionomer)	83	12	6		= 101
	Mills 1993	Delton (resin)	58	17	25		= 100
	Güngör 2004	Dyract Seal (PMRC)	80	16	4		= 100
	Güngör 2004	Delton FS+ (resin)	71	16	13		= 100
	Lampa 2004	Dyract Seal (PMRC)	16	44	40		= 100
	Lampa 2004	Delton DDS (resin)	66	23	11		= 100
Sealant retention: 36 months	Brooks 1979	Delton (resin)	80	10	10		= 100
	Charbeneau 1979	Kerr (resin)	61	23	16		= 100
	Hunter 1988	Delton (resin)	64	19	8	9	= 100
	Poulsen 2001	Fuji III (ionomer)	3	7	89		= 100
	Poulsen 2001	Delton (resin)	74	16	10		= 100
	Beiruti 2006	Fuji IX (ionomer)			60
	Beiruti 2006	Visio‐Seal (composite resin)			60
	Kervanto‐Seppälä 2008 retention stated by tooth pairs	In total 559 tooth pairs: in 1% ionomer retained, resin lost; in 89% ionomer lost, resin retained, in 6% ionomer retained, resin retained; in 4% ionomer lost, resin lost = 100%
Sealant retention: 44 months	Arrow 1995 retention stated by tooth pairs	In total 465 tooth pairs: in 10% ionomer retained, resin lost; in 18% ionomer lost, resin retained, in 10% ionomer retained, resin retained; in 62% ionomer lost, resin lost = 100%
Sealant retention: 48 months	Charbeneau 1979	Kerr (resin)	52	26	22		= 100
Sealant retention: 54 months	Brooks 1979	Delton (resin)	72	14	14		= 100
Sealant retention: 60 months	Beiruti 2006	Fuji IX (ionomer)			88
Sealant retention: 60 months	Beiruti 2006	Visio‐Seal (composite resin)			86
Sealant retention: 7 years	Forss 1998 retention stated by tooth pairs	In total 97 tooth pairs: in 6 % ionomer retained, resin lost; in 41% ionomer lost, resin retained, in 4% ionomer retained, resin retained; in 49% ionomer lost, resin lost = 100%
Sealant retention: 9 years	Bravo 2005	Delton (resin)	39

Table 3. Sealant retention

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. Resin sealant versus no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Caries yes/no at 12 months Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.13 [0.09, 0.20]

2 Caries yes/no at 24 months Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.22 [0.15, 0.34]

3 Caries yes/no at 36 months Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.30 [0.22, 0.40]

4 Caries yes/no at 48‐54 months Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.40 [0.31, 0.51]

5 12‐13 years ‐ 2‐year DFS increment Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

6 Caries yes/no at 9 years Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	0.35 [0.22, 0.55]

Comparison 1. Resin sealant versus no treatment

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. Glass ionomer versus no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 12‐13 years ‐ 2‐year DFS increment Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 2. Glass ionomer versus no treatment

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. Glass ionomer versus resin sealant

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Caries yes/no at 24 months Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2 Caries yes/no at 36‐44 months Show forest plot	4		Risk Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3 12‐13 years ‐ 2‐year DFS increment Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4 Caries yes/no at 5 years Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	0.28 [0.13, 0.61]

5 Caries yes/no at 7 years Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	1.44 [0.88, 2.35]

Comparison 3. Glass ionomer versus resin sealant

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. Polyacid‐modified resin composite versus resin sealant

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Caries yes/no at 24 months Show forest plot	2		Odds ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.61 [0.23, 1.66]

Comparison 4. Polyacid‐modified resin composite versus resin sealant

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet