Comparative Evaluation of the Retention Rates of Composite Resin Pit and Fissure Sealants Placed on Permanent Molars Treated with Air Abrasion and Acid Etching: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Q3 Dentistry
Vishal Raut, Deepak Sharma, Ashish K Jain, Rahul Rao, Laresh N Mistry, Supriya Solanke
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of the Retention Rates of Composite Resin Pit and Fissure Sealants Placed on Permanent Molars Treated with Air Abrasion and Acid Etching: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Vishal Raut, Deepak Sharma, Ashish K Jain, Rahul Rao, Laresh N Mistry, Supriya Solanke","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim and objectives: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the retention rates of composite resin pit and fissure sealants placed on permanent molars prepared using air abrasion versus traditional acid etching methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science since inception to date, but only in English. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a 1-year follow-up, involving permanent molars treated with either air abrasion or acid etching prior to sealant placement, were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 with log odds ratios (ORs) as effect size metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four RCTs were included in the review. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in sealant retention between air abrasion and acid etching. The combined log OR was -0.727 [95% confidence interval (CI): -2.055 to 0.602], indicating a slight, nonsignificant trend favoring acid etching. Heterogeneity was moderate across studies. The overall quality of evidence was rated as moderate using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) framework.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no clear advantage of air abrasion over acid etching regarding the retention of fissure sealants on permanent molars. While air abrasion presents a minimally invasive alternative, acid etching remains the more established and effective technique. Further high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes and standardized methodologies are needed to confirm these findings and explore other clinically relevant outcomes.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Raut V, Sharma D, Jain AK, <i>et al.</i> Comparative Evaluation of the Retention Rates of Composite Resin Pit and Fissure Sealants Placed on Permanent Molars Treated with Air Abrasion and Acid Etching: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026;19(2):271-277.</p>","PeriodicalId":36045,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","volume":"19 2","pages":"271-277"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12960547/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim and objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the retention rates of composite resin pit and fissure sealants placed on permanent molars prepared using air abrasion versus traditional acid etching methods.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science since inception to date, but only in English. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a 1-year follow-up, involving permanent molars treated with either air abrasion or acid etching prior to sealant placement, were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 with log odds ratios (ORs) as effect size metrics.

Results: Four RCTs were included in the review. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in sealant retention between air abrasion and acid etching. The combined log OR was -0.727 [95% confidence interval (CI): -2.055 to 0.602], indicating a slight, nonsignificant trend favoring acid etching. Heterogeneity was moderate across studies. The overall quality of evidence was rated as moderate using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) framework.

Conclusion: There is no clear advantage of air abrasion over acid etching regarding the retention of fissure sealants on permanent molars. While air abrasion presents a minimally invasive alternative, acid etching remains the more established and effective technique. Further high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes and standardized methodologies are needed to confirm these findings and explore other clinically relevant outcomes.

How to cite this article: Raut V, Sharma D, Jain AK, et al. Comparative Evaluation of the Retention Rates of Composite Resin Pit and Fissure Sealants Placed on Permanent Molars Treated with Air Abrasion and Acid Etching: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026;19(2):271-277.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

空气磨蚀与酸蚀治疗恒磨牙后复合树脂牙槽和牙槽密封剂固位率的比较评价:随机对照试验的系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的和目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较空气磨蚀法和传统酸蚀法在恒磨牙上使用复合树脂坑沟密封剂的固位率。方法:对多个数据库进行综合检索,包括MEDLINE(通过PubMed)、Cochrane Library、Scopus和Web of Science自成立至今,但仅以英文进行检索。随机对照试验(rct)至少随访1年,包括在放置密封剂之前进行空气磨损或酸蚀处理的恒磨牙。数据提取和偏倚风险评估由两位审稿人使用Cochrane风险偏倚2 (RoB 2)工具独立进行。采用RevMan 5.3进行meta分析,以对数比值比(or)作为效应大小指标。结果:本综述纳入4项随机对照试验。荟萃分析显示,空气磨损和酸蚀在密封胶保留方面无统计学差异。综合对数OR为-0.727[95%置信区间(CI): -2.055至0.602],表明轻微的、不显著的趋势有利于酸蚀。研究间异质性中等。使用推荐、评估、发展和评价(GRADE)框架,证据的总体质量被评为中等。结论:空气磨蚀法在恒磨牙牙槽封闭剂固位方面没有明显的优势。虽然空气磨损是一种微创的替代方法,但酸蚀仍然是更成熟和有效的技术。需要进一步的大样本量、标准化方法的高质量随机对照试验来证实这些发现,并探索其他临床相关结果。如何引用本文:Raut V, Sharma D, Jain AK,等。空气磨蚀与酸蚀治疗恒磨牙后复合树脂牙槽和牙槽密封剂固位率的比较评价:随机对照试验的系统综述和荟萃分析。中华临床儿科杂志,2016;19(2):271-277。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
135
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书