The overall outcome of the computed data sets suggest no difference between the caries-preventive effects of GIC- and resin-based fissure sealants .
Background This article constitutes a partial up date of the original systematic review evidence by Yengopal et al. from 15 January 2008 ( published in the Journal of Oral Science in 2009 ) with primary focus on research quality in regard to bias risk in trials .
Its aim is to up date the existing systematic review evidence from the English literature as to whether caries occurrence on pits and fissures of teeth sealed with either GIC or resin is the same .
A three-year follow-up of glass ionomer cement and resin fissure sealants.
The aim of the present study was to compare intraindividually a type III fissure-sealant , glass ionomer cement with a resin-based sealant .  One hundred and forty-eight first permanent molars were sealed in forty-seven children . After three years 20.8 percent of the resin and 34.7 percent of the glass ionomer cement sealants were partially lost , and 0 percent and 37.5 percent , respectively , were totally lost . One tooth ( 1.4 percent ) in the glass ionomer cement group and three teeth ( 4.2 percent ) in the resin group developed caries
The overall outcome of the computed data sets suggest no difference between the caries-preventive effects of GIC- and resin-based fissure sealants .
Background This article constitutes a partial up date of the original systematic review evidence by Yengopal et al. from 15 January 2008 ( published in the Journal of Oral Science in 2009 ) with primary focus on research quality in regard to bias risk in trials .
Its aim is to up date the existing systematic review evidence from the English literature as to whether caries occurrence on pits and fissures of teeth sealed with either GIC or resin is the same .