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 .
Inhibition of mineral loss at the enamel/sealant interface of fissures sealed with fluoride- and non-fluoride containing dental materials in vitro.
OBJECTIVE In this in vitro study we evaluated the enamel mineral loss effect of  fluoride-containing and non-fluoride-containing material s at different distances from the sealant margin , and verified the fluoride-releasing capability of these material s. MATERIAL AND METHODS Extracted molars were r and omly assigned into nine groups ( n = 12 ) :  Concise ( C ) , FluroShield ( F ) , Helioseal Clear Chroma ( H ) , Vitremer ( V ) , Fuji II-LC ( FII ) , Ketac Molar ( KM ) , Fuji IX ( FIX ) , Single Bond ( SB ) , and Clearfil Protect Bond ( CF ) . All groups were subjected to thermo and pH cycling . Enamel mineral loss was evaluated by cross-section micro-hardness analysis at distances : -100 microm , 0 microm , 100 microm , 200 microm . The mineral loss data were analyzed using a multi-factor ANOVA with split-plot design , and fluoride-released data were su bmi tted to ANOVA and Tukey tests . RESULTS FIX demonstrated a lower mineral loss than C , F , and H , but did not differ from the SB , CF , V , FII , and KM groups , which also demonstrated no difference among them . C , F , H , and V presented the highest mineral loss , with no difference among them . V did not differ from the other groups ( p > 0.05 ) . Regarding the different distances from the sealant margin , -100 microm presented the lowest mineral loss . FIX showed the highest fluoride release on the 7th and 14th days of evaluation , while CF showed high fluoride release only on the 7th day . CONCLUSION Resin sealant did not prevent enamel mineral loss , contrary to glass-ionomer cement , which showed the highest capacity for fluoride release . It is not exclusively the presence of fluoride in a material 's composition that indicates its capability to interfere with the development of enamel caries-like lesions
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 .