Are glass carbomer sealants more efficient in preventing carious lesions in children’s permanent molars when compared to other sealant materials? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

C. Lopes, L. Wambier, A. Chibinski, A. Reis, D. Wambier
{"title":"Are glass carbomer sealants more efficient in preventing carious lesions in children’s permanent molars when compared to other sealant materials? A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"C. Lopes, L. Wambier, A. Chibinski, A. Reis, D. Wambier","doi":"10.29327/24816.5.2-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This systematic review was performed to evaluate the efficacy of glass carbomer when compared with other sealant materials in preventing carious lesions in children and retention in pit and fissures. Sources of data: The paper included only randomized clinical trials that compared pit and fissure sealants with glass carbomer and other sealant materials in children’s permanent molars with at least six-monthfollow-up. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library and Grey literature (December 2020/January 2021). The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment of the studies and GRADE approach for the quality of the evidence. Meta-analysis was performed on studies from which data could be achieved. Synthesis of data: A total of 1685 papers were identified, 54 were selected for review. From these, 40 articles were excluded after the reading of the abstract and 14 articles were put aside for assessment. Eight papers were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The prevalence of caries-free pit and fissures did not show differences after six (p=0.77; I2= 0%) or 12 months (p=0.60; I2= 0%) and the quality of the evidence was judged as low; after 24 months, other sealant materials performed better (p=0.30; I2=7%) and the quality as moderate. There were no differences in the retention rates of the different materials after six-month (p<0.0001; I2= 96%), 12-month follow-up (p<0.0001; I2= 99%) and 24 months (p<0.00001; I2= 100%); the quality of the evidence was considered very low. Conclusion: Glass carbomer sealants have a similar performance to other sealant materials when retention is considered. For the development of new carious lesions, other sealant materials performed better over time. However, new clinical trials are needed to corroborate these findings since it still lacks quality to the evidence raised.","PeriodicalId":323707,"journal":{"name":"Rio de Janeiro Dental Journal (Revista Científica do CRO-RJ)","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rio de Janeiro Dental Journal (Revista Científica do CRO-RJ)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29327/24816.5.2-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review was performed to evaluate the efficacy of glass carbomer when compared with other sealant materials in preventing carious lesions in children and retention in pit and fissures. Sources of data: The paper included only randomized clinical trials that compared pit and fissure sealants with glass carbomer and other sealant materials in children’s permanent molars with at least six-monthfollow-up. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library and Grey literature (December 2020/January 2021). The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment of the studies and GRADE approach for the quality of the evidence. Meta-analysis was performed on studies from which data could be achieved. Synthesis of data: A total of 1685 papers were identified, 54 were selected for review. From these, 40 articles were excluded after the reading of the abstract and 14 articles were put aside for assessment. Eight papers were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The prevalence of caries-free pit and fissures did not show differences after six (p=0.77; I2= 0%) or 12 months (p=0.60; I2= 0%) and the quality of the evidence was judged as low; after 24 months, other sealant materials performed better (p=0.30; I2=7%) and the quality as moderate. There were no differences in the retention rates of the different materials after six-month (p<0.0001; I2= 96%), 12-month follow-up (p<0.0001; I2= 99%) and 24 months (p<0.00001; I2= 100%); the quality of the evidence was considered very low. Conclusion: Glass carbomer sealants have a similar performance to other sealant materials when retention is considered. For the development of new carious lesions, other sealant materials performed better over time. However, new clinical trials are needed to corroborate these findings since it still lacks quality to the evidence raised.
与其他密封材料相比,玻璃卡波姆密封胶在预防儿童恒磨牙龋齿损伤方面是否更有效?系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:系统评价玻璃卡波姆与其他密封材料在预防儿童龋齿及牙槽和牙缝滞留方面的效果。数据来源:该论文仅包括随机临床试验,比较坑和裂缝密封与玻璃卡波姆和其他密封材料在儿童恒磨牙至少六个月的随访。系统检索PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、LILACS、BBO、Cochrane Library和Grey文献(2020年12月/ 2021年1月)。Cochrane协作网的偏倚风险工具用于研究质量评估,GRADE方法用于证据质量评估。对可获得数据的研究进行meta分析。数据综合:共收录论文1685篇,筛选出54篇进行综述。其中,阅读摘要后排除40篇,保留14篇进行评估。8篇论文被纳入定性和定量综合。6个月后无龋坑和无牙裂的发生率无显著性差异(p=0.77;I2= 0%)或12个月(p=0.60;I2= 0%),认为证据质量较低;24个月后,其他密封材料表现更好(p=0.30;I2=7%),质量为中等。6个月后,不同材料的保留率无差异(p<0.0001;I2= 96%), 12个月随访(p<0.0001;I2= 99%)和24个月(p<0.00001;I2 = 100%);证据的质量被认为非常低。结论:在考虑固位的情况下,玻璃卡波姆密封胶的性能与其他密封胶相似。对于新的龋齿病变的发展,其他密封材料随着时间的推移表现更好。然而,需要新的临床试验来证实这些发现,因为所提出的证据仍然缺乏质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信