The content of these signals suggest that higher precision of the current systematic review results might be achieved if an up date of the current review were conducted at this point in time .
However , these signals further indicate that such systematic review up date , despite its higher precision , would only confirm the existing review conclusion that no statistically significant difference exists in the caries-preventive effect of GIC and resin-based fissure sealants .
In conclusion , this study demonstrated the modified Ottawa method as an effective tool in establishing the up date need of the systematic review .
OBJECTIVE To demonstrate the application of the modified Ottawa method by establishing the up date need of a systematic review with focus on the caries preventive effect of GIC versus resin pit and fissure sealants ;  to answer the question as to whether the existing conclusions of this systematic review are still current ; to establish whether a new up date of this systematic review was needed .
Caries-preventive efficacy and retention of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based fissure sealant: a 3-year split-mouth randomised clinical trial.
PURPOSE This prospect i ve clinical trial compared the retention rate and caries-preventive efficacy of two types of sealant modalities over a 3-year period . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Using a split-mouth r and omised design , 1280 sealants were r and omly applied on sound permanent second molars of 320 young patients aged between 12 and 16 years . Half of the teeth ( n = 640 ) were sealed with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement ( RMGIC ) ( Vitremer ™ , 3 M ESPE ) and the other half ( n = 640 ) with a conventional light-cure , resin-based fissure sealant ( LCRB ) ( Fluoroshield ® , Dentsply Caulk ) . Teeth were evaluated at baseline , 6- , 12- , 18- , 24- , 30- and 36-month intervals with regard to retention and new caries development . RESULTS On the sealed occlusal surfaces after 3 years , 5.10 % of RMGIC and 91.08 % of LCRB sealants were totally intact and 6.37 % of RMGIC and 7.65 % of LCRB sealants were partially intact . New caries lesions were found in 20.06 % of RMGIC sealed occlusal surfaces , compared to 8.91 % for LCRB sealants . CONCLUSIONS The findings of the present clinical study suggest that RMGIC should be used only as a transitional sealant that can be applied to newly erupting teeth throughout the eruptive process , whereas LCRB sealants are used to successfully prevent occlusal caries lesions once an effective rubber dam can be achieved . It can be concluded that there are differences between the RMGIC and LCRB sealants over a 3-year period in terms of the retention rate and caries-preventive efficacy . RMGIC can serve as a simple and economic sealing solution , however provisional . Due to its poor retention rate , periodic recalls are necessary , even after 6 months , to eventually replace the lost sealant
The content of these signals suggest that higher precision of the current systematic review results might be achieved if an up date of the current review were conducted at this point in time .
However , these signals further indicate that such systematic review up date , despite its higher precision , would only confirm the existing review conclusion that no statistically significant difference exists in the caries-preventive effect of GIC and resin-based fissure sealants .
In conclusion , this study demonstrated the modified Ottawa method as an effective tool in establishing the up date need of the systematic review .
OBJECTIVE To demonstrate the application of the modified Ottawa method by establishing the up date need of a systematic review with focus on the caries preventive effect of GIC versus resin pit and fissure sealants ;  to answer the question as to whether the existing conclusions of this systematic review are still current ; to establish whether a new up date of this systematic review was needed .