MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4299410041 · doi:10.17615/ewtb-pq29

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants

2020· article· en· W4299410041 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kevin J. Donly, E. Jane Gillette, Laurel Graham, Edmond R. Hewlett, Vineet Dhar, Mark D. Siegal, Brian B. Nový, Cameron G. Estrich, Alonso Carrasco‐Labra, John T. Wright, Timothy Iafolla, Malavika P. Tampi, Rocio B. Quiñonez, Matt Crespin, Jeffrey Chaffin, Margherita Fontana, James J. Crall

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Dentistry, University of MarylandNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at San AntonioCenters for Disease Control and PreventionSchool of Dentistry, University of MichiganUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversity of California, Los AngelesOhio State UniversityNational Institutes of HealthA.T. Still UniversityNova Southeastern UniversityMcMaster UniversitySchool of Dental Medicine, University of PittsburghUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of WashingtonUniversidad de Chile
KeywordsMedicineDentistryGuidelineRandomized controlled trialMolarPermanent teethSealantMEDLINEEvidence-based dentistryClinical trialFissureOrthodonticsAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants on the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars in children and adolescents. A guideline panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated recommendations to address clinical questions in relation to the efficacy, retention, and potential side effects of sealants to prevent dental caries; their efficacy compared with fluoride varnishes; and a head-to-head comparison of the different types of sealant material used to prevent caries on pits-and-fissures of occlusal surfaces. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: This is an update of the ADA 2008 recommendations on the use of pit-and-fissure sealants on the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars. The authors conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other sources to identify randomized controlled trials reporting on the effect of sealants (available on the U.S. market) when applied to the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the quality of the evidence and to move from the evidence to the decisions. RESULTS: The guideline panel formulated 3 main recommendations. They concluded that sealants are effective in preventing and arresting pit-and-fissure occlusal carious lesions of primary and permanent molars in children and adolescents compared with the nonuse of sealants or use of fluoride varnishes. They also concluded that sealants could minimize the progression of non-cavitated occlusal carious lesions (also referred to as initial lesions) that receive a sealant. Finally, based on the available limited evidence, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations on the relative merits of 1 type of sealant material over the others. Conclusions and practical implications: These recommendations are designed to inform practitioners during the clinical decision-making process in relation to the prevention of occlusal carious lesions in children and adolescents. Clinicians are encouraged to discuss the information in this guideline with patients or the parents of patients. The authors recommend that clinicians re-orient their efforts toward increasing the use of sealants on the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars in children and adolescents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.011
Bibliometrics0.0150.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0120.005
Research integrity0.0150.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.359
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.067 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207