title: Fissure seal or fluoride varnish?
abstract: Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry PlatformStudy selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 12 months follow-up, in which fissure sealants, or fissure sealants together with fluoride varnishes, were compared with fluoride varnishes alone for preventing caries in occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth of children and adolescents.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Studies were grouped and analysed on the basis of sealant material type (resin-based sealant and glass ionomer-based sealant, glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer) and different follow-up periods. Odds ratio were calculated for caries or no caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth. Mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes and data. Evidence quality was assessed using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods.ResultsEight RCTs involving a total of 1747 children aged five to ten years of age were included. Three trials compared resin-based fissure sealant versus fluoride varnish. Results from two studies (358 children) after two years were combined. Sealants prevented more caries, pooled odds ratio (OR) = 0.69 (95%CI; 0.50 to 0.94). One trial with follow-up at four and nine years found that the caries-preventive benefit for sealants was maintained, with 26% of sealed teeth and 55.8% of varnished teeth having developed caries at nine years. Evidence for glass-ionomer sealants was of low quality. One split-mouth trial analysing 92 children at two-year follow-up found a significant difference in favour of resin-based fissure sealant together with fluoride varnish compared with fluoride varnish only (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55). The evidence was assessed as low quality. Three studies assessed but did not report any adverse effects.ConclusionsCurrently, scarce and clinically diverse data are available on the comparison of sealants and fluoride varnish applications; therefore it is not possible to draw clear conclusions about possible differences in effectiveness for preventing or controlling dental caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars. The conclusions of this updated review remain the same as those of the last update (in 2010). We found some low quality evidence suggesting the superiority of resin-based fissure sealants over fluoride varnish applications for preventing occlusal caries in permanent molars, and other low-quality evidence for benefits of resin-based sealant and fluoride varnish over fluoride varnish alone. Regarding glass ionomer sealant versus fluoride varnish comparisons, we assessed the quality of the evidence as very low and could draw no conclusions.
authors: Unit of Oral Health and Development, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
authors: Christopher
authors: C
authors: Deery
mesh_terms: D003731:Dental Caries / Q000188:drug therapy*; D005459:Fluorides; D005460:Fluorides, Topical / Q000627:therapeutic use; D006801:Humans; D010150:Paint; D010895:Pit and Fissure Sealants
chemical_list: D005460:Fluorides, Topical; D010895:Pit and Fissure Sealants; D005459:Fluorides