Pit and fissure sealants in the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the evidence for sealants as a means to prevent caries in children and adolescents and, in the presence of suitable supporting evidence, to develop a protocol for the application of sealants. METHODS: Previous systematic reviews on this topic were used as the basis for the current review. Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL and several other relevant bibliographic databases were searched for English-language articles, with human subjects, published from 2000 to 2007. RESULTS: A total of 303 articles were identified by the literature search; relevance was determined by examining the title and abstract of the articles. Thirty-eight original research studies met the inclusion criteria. These articles were read in full and scored independently by 2 reviewers, and evidence was extracted for development of recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations are based on the evidence gathered in this review: 1. Sealants should be placed on all permanent teeth without cavitation (i.e., teeth that are free of caries, teeth that have deep pit and fissure morphology, teeth with "sticky" fissures or teeth with stained grooves) as soon after eruption as isolation can be achieved. 2. Sealants should not be placed on partially erupted teeth or teeth with cavitation or caries of the dentin. 3. Sealants should be placed on the primary molars of children who are susceptible to caries (i.e., those with a history of caries). 4. Sealants should be placed on first and second molars within 4 years after eruption. 5. Resin-based sealants should be preferred, until such time as glass ionomer cements with better retention capacity are developed. 6. Sealants should be placed as part of an overall prevention strategy based on assessment of caries risk.
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".