Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 516   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 861-884

Comparative evaluation of retention and cariostatic effect of hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealants: A systematic review and meta-analysis


1 Pediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
2 Pediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Department of Pedodontics and Oral Health, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Dr. H M Elkhodary
Pediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box: 80209, Jeddah - 21589

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_1863_21

Rights and Permissions

Background: Evidence-based information should be provided to clinicians to explain the effectiveness of hydrophilic and hydrophobic forms of resin based sealants (RBSs). Aim: To assess and evaluate the retention and cariostatic effect of hydrophilic and hydrophobic RBSs in primary and/ or permanent teeth with at least a follow-up period of 3 months. Materials and Methods: Five databases were searched up to September 2021 for randomized and non-randomized clinical trials (RCTs and non-RCTs) that evaluated the retention and cariostatic effect of hydrophilic and hydrophobic RBSs. Two authors nominated the papers, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Results: By comparing the retention rate and caries incidence between groups, pooled-effect estimates of included articles were generated. After removing duplicates from the 2,810 titles found, only 1938 remained. Twelve of these were thoroughly examined. A total of 12 papers met the inclusion criteria in qualitative analysis: seven RCTs and five non-RCTs. Only ten studies were included in the meta-analysis: five RCTs and five non-RCTs. After 12 months of follow-up, no significant difference was found in the retention of hydrophilic and hydrophobic RBSs with and without a bonding agent. After 12 months of follow-up, no significant difference was found in the cariostatic effect of hydrophilic and hydrophobic RBSs. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in retention and the cariostatic impact was found between hydrophilic and hydrophobic RBSs.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed238    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded43    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal