A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of a one‐step conditioning agent in sealant placement: 6‐month results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objectives of this study were: to compare the retention of fissure sealants (sealants) placed on occlusal surfaces following the use of a self-etching priming agent and traditional acid etch; to compare the caries incidence of occlusal surfaces sealed using the two techniques; and to compare the ease of placement of sealant following the use of the two techniques, as assessed by subjects and operators. DESIGN: The study took the form of a randomized controlled trial conducted in UK National Health Service community dental service and dental hospital clinics. Sixty subjects were recruited to this study by seven dental professionals who placed sealants on lower permanent molar pairs. The technique used for enamel preparation prior to sealant placement on the right and left side of the lower arch was randomized. On one side of the lower arch, Xeno III was used to prepare the occlusal enamel, and on the other, phosphoric acid etch together with Prime & Bond was used. Opaque Delton was used to seal all surfaces. Subjects were blinded to the techniques used. The subjects and operators recorded their impressions of the techniques used on individual questionnaires. RESULTS: Forty-six (77%) of the 60 subjects were reviewed by the principal researcher after 6 months. The retention of the acid-etch group was significantly superior (P < 0.01), as was the caries preventive effect (P < 0.01). Subjects tended to report that placement of sealants was easier following enamel preparation with Xeno III (P = 0.085), and in the opinion of the operators, sealants were significantly easier to place when using Xeno III (P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: In view of the findings of this investigation, best practice for the placement of sealants remains enamel preparation with acid etch and the use of an intermediate bonding layer.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".