This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (31 JUL 2017)

Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth

  1. Anneli Ahovuo-Saloranta1,*,
  2. Helena Forss2,
  3. Tanya Walsh3,
  4. Anne Hiiri4,
  5. Anne Nordblad5,
  6. Marjukka Mäkelä6,
  7. Helen V Worthington7

Editorial Group: Cochrane Oral Health Group

Published Online: 28 MAR 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub4


How to Cite

Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Forss H, Walsh T, Hiiri A, Nordblad A, Mäkelä M, Worthington HV. Sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001830. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub4.

Author Information

  1. 1

    National Institute for Health and Welfare / THL, Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment / FinOHTA, Tampere, Finland

  2. 2

    Tampere University Hospital, Department of Oral and Dental Diseases, Tampere, Finland

  3. 3

    School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

  4. 4

    City of Kotka, Department of Health Care, Kotka, Finland

  5. 5

    Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Health Department, Helsinki, Finland

  6. 6

    National Institute for Health and Welfare / THL, Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment / FinOHTA, Helsinki, Finland

  7. 7

    School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Cochrane Oral Health Group, Manchester, UK

*Anneli Ahovuo-Saloranta, Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment / FinOHTA, National Institute for Health and Welfare / THL, Finn-Medi 3, Biokatu 10, Tampere, FI-33520, Finland. anneli.ahovuo-saloranta@thl.fi.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 28 MAR 2013

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (31 JUL 2017)

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias domain presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias domain for each included study.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Caries yes/no at 12 months.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 2 Caries yes/no at 24 months.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 3 Caries yes/no at 36 months.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 4 Caries yes/no at 48-54 months.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 5 Caries yes/no at 48 months, parallel group studies.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 6 12-13 years - 2-year DFS increment.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 7 Caries yes/no at 5 years.
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 8 Caries yes/no at 6 years.
[Analysis 1.9]
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 9 Caries yes/no at 7 years.
[Analysis 1.10]
Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 Resin sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 10 Caries yes/no at 9 years, parallel group studies.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Glass ionomer sealant versus no treatment, Outcome 1 12-13 years - 2-year DFS increment.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 1 Caries yes/no at 12 months.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 2 Caries yes/no at 24 months.
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 3 12-13 years - 2-year DFS increment.
[Analysis 3.4]
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 Glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 4 Caries yes/no at 36-48 months.
[Analysis 3.5]
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 Glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 5 Caries yes/no at 5 years, parallel group studies.
[Analysis 3.6]
Analysis 3.6. Comparison 3 Glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 6 Caries yes/no at 7 years.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Resin-modified glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 1 Caries yes/no at 12 months.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Resin-modified glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 2 Caries yes/no at 12 months, parallel group studies.
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Resin-modified glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 3 Caries yes/no at 24 months.
[Analysis 4.4]
Analysis 4.4. Comparison 4 Resin-modified glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 4 Caries yes/no at 24 months, parallel group studies.
[Analysis 4.5]
Analysis 4.5. Comparison 4 Resin-modified glass ionomer versus resin sealant, Outcome 5 Caries yes/no at 36 months.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Polyacid-modified resin composite versus resin sealant, Outcome 1 Caries yes/no at 24 months.