Clinical evaluation of sealants and preventive resin restorations in a group of environmentally homogeneous children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pit and fissure sealants reduce occlusal caries when proper patient selection and application techniques are followed. To increase retention rate of sealants over time, good adaptation and deep sealant penetration are important. Studies remain inconclusive, however, as to determining if the bur preparation of pits and fissures would increase the adaptation and penetration thus improving sealant retention. The aim of this study was to assess if tooth preparation prior to sealant application improves sealant retention. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 43 children and adolescents from 4 Hutterites colonies were, for 3 years, bussed to the University of Manitoba pediatric dental clinic, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, for comprehensive dental care including sealant placement using standard procedures. These came from a community with homogeneous social economical status, dietary habits, fluoride intake, and lifestyles. The decision of tooth preparation prior to sealant application was made ad hoc. Of 122 treated permanent posterior teeth, 54 had been treated as preventive resin restorations (PRRs, type A or B) and 68 were nonprepared sealants. RESULTS: After 1 year, teeth prepared (type B PRRs) and restored with flowable composite resins had significantly (P<.01) lower retention rates (27% vs 63%) than did teeth with nonprepared sealants or typeA PRRs. Teeth prepared (type B PRRs) were also significantly (P<.001) more likely to have caries on follow-up examination (50% vs 11%) than were teeth with nonprepared sealants or type A PRRs. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that preventive resin type B restorations restored with flowable composites are not helpful in terms of retention or caries reduction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".