Conclusion It seems that the use of flowable composite as a fissure sealing material can slightly increase the retention rate of sealants compared with conventional resin-based sealants
Objectives The aim of this systematic review and meta- analysis was to evaluate fissure sealant retention in clinical studies in which investigators used flowable composites as pit and fissure sealants compared with conventional resin-based pit and fissure sealants .
Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations.
This clinical study evaluated the retention and caries protection of a flowable resin composite ( Flow Line ) and a flowable compomer ( Dyract Flow ) used in preventive resin restorations  as compared to the conventional preventive resin technique which uses a resin composite ( Brilliant ) and a sealant ( Concise ) . This study observed 205 permanent molars with small carious cavities less than 1.5 mm in width , which were obtained from 165 children aged 7 to 15 years .  Flowable resin composite was used to treat 75 teeth , and 71 teeth were treated with flowable compomer in both cavities and caries-free fissures . For the control group , 59 teeth were treated with resin composite in cavities and sealant in caries-free fissures . The teeth were evaluated at 3 , 6 , 12 , 18 and 24-month intervals . After three months , all 205 treated teeth were completely intact . After six months , 66 of the 71 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 65 of the 70 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete , compared to 57 of the 58 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique . After 12 months , 60 of the 67 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 61 of the 67 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete , compared to 51 of the 55 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique . After 18 months , 53 of the 61 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 54 of the 62 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete , compared to 47 of the 53 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique . After 24 months , 49 of the 58 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 45 of the 57 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete , compared to 42 of the 52 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique . There were no statistically significant differences in retention rates among all groups after 3 , 6 , 12 , 18 or 24-months ( p>0.05 ) . One tooth treated with flowable resin composite and one tooth treated with flowable compomer developed caries after 18 and 24 months , respectively , result ing from partial loss at " caries-free fissures . " Five teeth developed caries in the conventional preventive resin group ; one after 12 months , two after 18 months and one after 24 months , due to loss at cavities . The final caries occurred after 24 months , result ing from partial loss at " caries-free fissures . " The differences in caries development among the three groups were not statistically significant ( p>0.05 ) . This study suggested that flowable resin composite and flowable compomer could be used for preventive resin restorations . Meanwhile , a vigilant recall should be followed-up due to the risk of failure for flowable material s in " caries-free " fissures . The repair should be performed immediately , in case the preventive resin restoration develops a fracture or loss
Conclusion It seems that the use of flowable composite as a fissure sealing material can slightly increase the retention rate of sealants compared with conventional resin-based sealants
Objectives The aim of this systematic review and meta- analysis was to evaluate fissure sealant retention in clinical studies in which investigators used flowable composites as pit and fissure sealants compared with conventional resin-based pit and fissure sealants .