Resin-based sealant effectiveness in high-caries risk children: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been limited previous reviews on the use of sealants in high-caries-risk children that include multiple study designs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the preventive effect of sealants on high-caries-risk children and compare the effectiveness of sealants between high-caries-risk children and lower-caries-risk children. METHODS: An initial protocol was developed following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed across several electronic databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and Google Scholar. Experimental or observational studies that examined resin-based sealants for preventing caries over at least 12 months in high-caries-risk children, identified by individual risk assessment, were included. Comparison groups were moderate- or low-risk children or no sealant; if unavailable, only intervention data were used. The risk of bias was assessed via the RoB2 tool and the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: A total of 1651 unique records were identified, 20 of which were included in this systematic review. Studies comparing only sealed teeth among different caries risk groups have indicated that high-caries-risk children have a greater risk of developing new carious lesions than low- or moderate-risk children do. In contrast, the effect of sealants was negligible in low-caries-risk children when compared between sealed and nonsealed teeth. Additionally, caries experience was the primary criterion used across all included studies. CONCLUSION: Resin-based sealants are still recommended for high-caries-risk children. However, generalizability and an appropriate threshold for risk assessment remain unclear owing to the limited number of studies from low- to middle-income countries and variability in risk assessment methods. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number CRD42023473013. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".