Effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants on primary molars: A 2‐yr split‐mouth randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of sealants in preventing pit and fissure caries in primary molars. The secondary objective was to assess the sealant retention during a 2-yr study period. A 2-yr split-mouth randomized clinical trial including 90 3-7-yr-old children was conducted in the paediatric dental department of Montpellier hospital. The dentition of each included patient was divided into an experimental side and a control side, with annual follow-up visits. Caries increments, measured as the number of new occlusal cavitated lesions, were not different between the sealed (mean 0.23) and the control primary molars (mean 0.29). A multiple mixed-effects logistic regression showed that male gender, moderate/high caries risk, and a higher oral hygiene index score, had a statistically significant effect resulting in higher caries increments in the primary molars, than did female gender, low caries risk, and lower oral hygiene index scores. Sealing showed no statistically significant influence on the development of new caries lesions. After 2 yr, the percentages of partially or totally lost sealants were 22.7% and 32.0%, respectively. In this sample of children, the caries increment was not significantly different between the sealed and the unsealed molars. At the end of this 2-yr study, more than half of the sealants were totally or partially lost, which could explain the low sealant effectiveness.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".