| 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
H Alharthy1, HM Elkhodary2, A Nahdreen1, A Al Tuwirqi1, K Baghlaf1
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
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_1863_21
|
|
|
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]* |
|
 |
|
