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

10Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alharthy, H., Elkhodary, H., Nahdreen, A., Al Tuwirqi, A., & Baghlaf, K. (2022). Comparative evaluation of retention and cariostatic effect of hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin-based sealants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, 25(6), 861–884. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_1863_21

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free