Retention of resin‐based pit and fissure sealants: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review on the retention of resin-based sealants (RBSs) according to the material used and the clinical procedure. An electronic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and SCOPUS was completed by a hand search in conference proceedings. One hundred and twenty-four studies were identified, 31 of which were included. The retention rate of auto-polymerized and light-cured RBSs did not differ significantly. Light-cured RBSs had a significantly higher retention rate than fluoride-containing light-cured RBSs at 48 months (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72-0.89) and more. Concerning the clinical procedure, the scarcity of well-conducted studies made judgement difficult, except for the isolation stage. If using a rubber dam did not affect retention of auto-polymerized RBSs, it did for fluoride-containing light-cured RBSs (RR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.51-2.73).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".