This systematic review with meta- analysis found no evidence that either material was superior to the other in the prevention of dental caries .
Thus , both material s appear equally suitable for clinical application as a fissure sealant material
The purpose of this quantitative systematic review was to appraise the evidence on the  caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) in relation to  resin-based fissure sealants .
A 3-year clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer cements used as fissure sealants.
PURPOSE To evaluate the retention and caries-preventive effectiveness of two ionomeric material s ( conventional and resin-modified ) , used as fissure sealants . MATERIAL S AND METHODS 100 children ( 6 - 8 years old ) with a total of 400 permanent first molars received  200 conventional glass-ionomer ( Ketac Bond ) and 200 resin-modified glass-ionomer ( Vitremer ) sealants .  Additionally , 108 children constituted the control group ( 432 teeth ) . Two dentists assisted by dental hygienists performed the sealant application . Clinical evaluations were carried out 6 , 12 , 24 , and 36 months after the sealant application by two other dentists , not carrying out clinical procedures , previously calibrated ( Kappa > 0.75 ) . RESULTS Total retention rates of 26 % , 12 % , 3 % , and 4 % for Ketac Bond and 61 % , 31 % , 14 % , and 13 % for Vitremer , being 6 , 12 , 24 , and 36 months after clinical evaluation , respectively . The differences between the two material s were statistically significant . The experimental groups showed a caries incidence of 93 % , 78 % , 49 % , and 56 % lower than the control group ( P < 0.01 ) for the four evaluation periods , respectively . In conclusion , the retention rates of ionomeric material s were low . Nevertheless , these material s showed a cariostatic effect , supported by statistically lower caries incidence in experimental groups compared to control group . Presence of active incipient caries was statistically associated with caries incidence in the first molars after 36 months , in relation to either experimental or control group
This systematic review with meta- analysis found no evidence that either material was superior to the other in the prevention of dental caries .
Thus , both material s appear equally suitable for clinical application as a fissure sealant material
The purpose of this quantitative systematic review was to appraise the evidence on the  caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) in relation to  resin-based fissure sealants .