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 comparative study of fluoride-releasing composite resin and glass ionomer materials used as fissure sealants.
OBJECTIVES The objectives of the study were to investigate the clinical use of two fluoride-releasing fissure sealants and to study fluoride release under laboratory conditions . METHODS In the clinical part of the study the two material s , FluroShield and Baseline , were applied to matched contralateral caries-free first permanent molars in 86 children aged 7 - 8 years . In the laboratory study fluoride release from each material was measured using a model cavity system . RESULTS After 3 years FluroShield was intact on 70 % of teeth . Retention was significantly better on lower molars than upper molars . Baseline was lost from all except two teeth within 6 months . After 3 years , caries had affected four teeth sealed with FluroShield and 24 teeth sealed with Baseline ; this difference was highly significant . The laboratory study showed that FluroShield released twice as much fluoride over 9 days than did Baseline . Long term studies using FluroShield showed a small steady fluoride release over 6 months . CONCLUSIONS The conclusion of the study was that FluroShield was a much more effective fissure sealant than Baseline . The clinical performance of FluroShield was comparable to that of other inert composite resin sealants and superior to that of fluoride-releasing sealants used previously
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 .