13.01.2015 Views

Pit and Fissure Sealants in the Prevention of Dental Caries in ...

Pit and Fissure Sealants in the Prevention of Dental Caries in ...

Pit and Fissure Sealants in the Prevention of Dental Caries in ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

––– <strong>Sealants</strong>: <strong>Prevention</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Caries</strong> –––<br />

Citation: Autio-Gold JT. Cl<strong>in</strong>ical evaluation <strong>of</strong> a medium-filled flowable restorative material as a pit <strong>and</strong> fissure<br />

sealant. Oper Dent 2002; 27(4):325–9.<br />

Population: 32 children with 118 fully erupted, caries-free first <strong>and</strong>/or second permanent molars<br />

• Age: 6–11 years<br />

• Sex: Not mentioned<br />

• Location: University <strong>of</strong> Florida dental school<br />

• Representative <strong>of</strong> dental school pediatric patients<br />

Intervention: Half-mouth design<br />

n = 59 teeth, medium-filled (46% volume) flowable restorative material (CuRay-Match, OMNII Oral Pharmaceuticals,<br />

West Palm Beach, Fla.)<br />

Control: n = 59 teeth, unfilled sealant (Delton, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del.)<br />

Outcomes: Only 18-month results are presented here (n = 45 teeth <strong>in</strong> each group); 23% loss to follow-up<br />

Full retention:<br />

• Medium-filled res<strong>in</strong> vs. unfilled sealant: 40% vs. 64.4% (not significant)<br />

<strong>Caries</strong> development:<br />

• Medium-filled res<strong>in</strong> vs. unfilled sealant: 9% vs. 11% (not significant)<br />

Authors’ Conclusion: Medium-filled flowable restorative material did not perform better <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> retention rate or<br />

caries <strong>in</strong>crement compared with unfilled conventional sealant.<br />

Critical Appraisal:<br />

• No power calculation<br />

• 23% loss to follow-up<br />

• Insufficient duration<br />

• Operator/evaluator bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g is unclear<br />

Level <strong>of</strong> Evidence, Grade <strong>of</strong> Recommendation <strong>and</strong> Score on “Checklist to Assess Evidence <strong>of</strong> Efficacy <strong>of</strong> Therapy or<br />

<strong>Prevention</strong>”: Level I; grade A for seal<strong>in</strong>g teeth; score 10/16<br />

JCDA • www.cda-adc.ca/jcda • March 2008, Vol. 74, No. 2 • App_183xvii

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!