A 48-month survival analysis comparing sealant (Delton) with fluoride varnish (Duraphat) in 6- to 8-year-old children

Effectiveness of School Fluoride Delivery Programs: A Community Guide Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Although preventable, dental caries remains highly prevalent. Many children do not receive preventive dental services routinely in clinical settings. This review examined the effectiveness of school (preschool through high school) fluoride varnish delivery programs (SFVDP) in preventing caries.

METHODS

Community Guide systematic review methods were followed. In 2024, databases were searched for studies published through December 2023 on SFVDP effectiveness in increasing fluoride varnish (FV) receipt and decreasing caries. Included studies had to be written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals, and conducted in upper-middle or high-income countries. Data synthesis conducted in 2024 used median RR and interquartile interval (IQI) to summarize findings across studies.

RESULTS

Of 31 included studies with 60,780 students, 25 were randomized controlled trials-20 with good quality of execution. Most studies were conducted in low socioeconomic status (SES) areas among students at elevated caries risk. SFVDP reduced caries initiation by 32% (IQI: 21%, 37%) in permanent teeth (19 studies, 25,826 students) and by 25% (IQI: 4%, 37%) in primary teeth (12 studies, 4,304 students). Stratified assessments indicated findings were largely applicable to different settings, populations, and intervention characteristics. Two studies found SFVDP significantly increased the number of annual FV applications and two found that SFVDP effectiveness was inversely related to SES.

DISCUSSION

About 30% of states report having no SFVDPs. Possible barriers to implementation include that Medicaid in some states only reimburses dental and medical professionals and does not reimburse non-dental providers for FV delivered to children older than 6 years.

Clinical effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants in primary and permanent teeth of children and adolescents: an umbrella review

PURPOSE

This umbrella review aimed to critically appraise the evidence published in systematic reviews (SRs) on the clinical effectiveness of sealants compared with each other/the non-use in primary/permanent teeth of children and adolescents with at least 12-month follow-up.

METHODS

A systematic literature search on 4 electronic databases was conducted up to January 18th, 2023. Following handsearching, two review authors independently screened retrieved articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (RoB) using the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. Based on a citation matrix, the overlap was interpreted by the corrected covered area (CCA).

RESULTS

Of 239 retrieved records, 7 SRs met the eligibility criteria with a moderate overlap among them (CCA = 7.4%). For primary molars, in 1120 1.5- to 8-year-old children, data on the clinical effectiveness of sealants were inconclusive. For permanent molars, 3 SRs found a significant caries risk reduction for sealants versus non-use (≤ 36-month follow-up). There was insufficient evidence to proof superiority of sealants over fluoride varnish for caries prevention (3 SRs), and to rank sealant materials according to the best clinical effectiveness in permanent molars. One study was rated at low and 6 at high RoB, which did not allow for a valid quantitative synthesis.

CONCLUSION

Considering the limitations of this umbrella review, sealants are more effective for caries prevention in children's permanent molars compared to no treatment. Future well-implemented RCTs are needed to draw reliable conclusions on the clinical effectiveness of sealants in primary and permanent teeth of children and adolescents.

COMPLIANCE OF RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS ON DENTAL CARIES PREVENTION METHODS WITH THE CONSORT STATEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

OBJECTIVE

Reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry remains suboptimal. Considering the positive impact of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines on the quality of evidence in RCTs, the main objective of this systematic review was to determine whether RCTs on dental caries prevention conform to these guidelines. The secondary objective was to assess the association between CONSORT adherence and the year and impact factor of the journal in which the study was published.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in different databases using appropriate terms to retrieve RCTs that assessed the caries-preventive effect of at least 2 of the following materials-fluoride varnish, resin-based fissure sealants, and ionomer-based fissure sealants-on the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars. Since the first CONSORT statement was published in 1996, a time frame from 1997 to 2020 was established for the identification of studies. Selected articles were assessed according to their adherence to the CONSORT statement, risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias tool, RoB 2.0), and journal impact factor based on the InCites Journal Citation Reports. The year of publication and other relevant data were also recorded. SPSS (SPSS Statistics 25.0, IBM©) was used to perform the linear correlation analyses to determine the relationship between the article CONSORT score (previously determined) and the year of publication and journal impact factor. A significance level of 5% was established for all analyses.

RESULTS

Of 3196 references retrieved, 30 articles were selected and evaluated. Using RoB 2.0, 8 studies were classified as having a high risk of bias, 16 as having some concerns about the risk of bias assessment, and 6 as having a low risk of bias. Concerning CONSORT adherence, 77% of the studies adequately reported the intervention domain, since the methodology for the application of fluoride varnish or sealant materials was thoroughly described. However, the participants' setting and location, random sequence generation, randomization, and the flowchart description of the losses/exclusions domains were poorly reported. Meanwhile, the allocation concealment process was not reported in 83% of the articles. Correlation analyses indicated a positive relationship between CONSORT adherence and the year of publication, as well as the journal impact factor.

CONCLUSION

When assessing clinical trials on the prevention of occlusal caries, most RCTs examined followed the CONSORT statement. However, some methodological domains remain poorly reported, demonstrating the need to improve CONSORT compliance in these RCTs.

Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Most of the detected increment in dental caries among children above the age of six years and adolescents is confined to occlusal surfaces of posterior permanent molars. Dental sealants and fluoride varnishes are much used to prevent caries. As the effectiveness of both interventions in controlling caries as compared with no intervention has been demonstrated previously, this review aimed to evaluate their relative effectiveness. It updates a review published originally in 2006 and updated in 2010 and in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of dental sealants (i.e. fissure sealant) compared with fluoride varnishes, or fissure sealants plus fluoride varnishes compared with fluoride varnishes alone, for preventing dental caries in the occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Our secondary objectives were to evaluate whether effectiveness is influenced by sealant material type and length of follow-up, document and report on data concerning adverse events associated with sealants and fluoride varnishes, and report the cost effectiveness of dental sealants versus fluoride varnish in caries prevention.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2020) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2020). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with at least 12 months of follow-up comparing fissure sealants, or fissure sealants plus fluoride varnishes, versus fluoride varnishes, for preventing caries in the occlusal surfaces of permanent posterior teeth (i.e. premolar or molar teeth), in participants younger than 20 years of age at the start of the study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We attempted to contact study authors to obtain missing or unclear information. We grouped and analysed studies on the basis of sealant material type: resin-based sealant or glass ionomer-based sealant (glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer sealant), and different follow-up periods. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for risk of caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth. For trials with a split-mouth design, we used the Becker-Balagtas OR. One cluster-randomised trial provided precise estimates in terms of risk ratio (RR), which we used. For continuous outcomes and data, we used means and standard deviations to obtain mean differences (MD). For meta-analysis, we used the random-effects model when we combined data from four or more studies. We presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials with 3374 participants aged five to 10 years when trials started. Three trials are new since the 2016 update. Two trials did not contribute data to our analysis. Sealant versus fluoride varnish Resin-based fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes Seven trials evaluated this comparison (five contributing data). We are uncertain if resin-based sealants may be better than fluoride varnish, or vice versa, for preventing caries in first permanent molars at two to three years' follow-up (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.19; I² = 84%; 4 studies, 1683 children evaluated). One study measuring decayed, missing and filled permanent surfaces (DMFS) and decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth (DMFT) increment at two years suggested a small benefit for fissure sealant (DMFS MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.03; DMFT MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; 542 participants), though this may not be clinically significant. One small study, at high risk of bias, reported a benefit for sealant after four years in preventing caries (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.84; 75 children) and at nine years (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 75 children). We assessed each of these results as having very low certainty. Glass ionomer-based sealants versus fluoride varnishes Three trials evaluated this comparison: one trial with chemically cured glass ionomer and two with resin-modified glass ionomer. Studies were clinically diverse, so we did not conduct a meta-analysis. In general, the studies found no benefit of one intervention over another at one, two and three years, although one study, which also included oral health education, suggested a benefit from sealants over varnish for children at high risk of caries. We assessed this evidence as very low certainty. Sealant plus fluoride varnish versus fluoride varnish alone One split-mouth trial analysing 92 children at two-year follow-up found in favour of resin-based fissure sealant plus fluoride varnish over fluoride varnish only (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55), which represented a clinically meaningful effect of a 77% reduction in caries after two years; however, we assessed this evidence as very low certainty. Adverse events Five trials (1801 participants) (four using resin-based sealant material and one using resin-modified glass ionomer) reported that no adverse events resulted from use of sealants or fluoride varnishes over one to nine years. The other studies did not mention adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Applying fluoride varnish or resin-based fissure sealants to first permanent molars helps prevent occlusal caries, but it has not been possible in this review to reach reliable conclusions about which one is better to apply. The available studies do not suggest either intervention is superior, but we assessed this evidence as having very low certainty. We found very low-certainty evidence that placing resin-based sealant as well as applying fluoride varnish works better than applying fluoride varnish alone. Fourteen studies are currently ongoing and their findings may allow us to draw firmer conclusions about whether sealants and varnish work equally well or whether one is better than the other.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of two caries prevention methods in the first permanent molar in children

BACKGROUND

Evidence supports two methods for preventing dental caries lesions in children: pit and fissure sealants (PFS) and fluoride varnishes (FV). The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of these two strategies in preventing dental caries lesions on the occlusal surface of the first permanent molar in children.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to simulate the progression of dental caries on the occlusal surface of the first permanent molar in a hypothetical cohort of children over a 9-year period. Transition probabilities were extracted from the published literature and costs were calculated from a payer's perspective. Two scenarios were evaluated based on the probability of replacing a failed PFS. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Over the 9-year study period PFS were less expensive and more effective than FV in preventing occlusal dental caries lesions. For the base case scenario the probability of replacing a failed PFS was 100 percent and the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for PFS was $156.87 per first episode of caries lesion averted. For the second scenario, the probability of replacing a failed PFS was lowered to 50 percent. Here, the ICER dropped to $113.00 per first episode of caries lesion averted and remained the dominant strategy.

CONCLUSION

PFS should be the preferred method for the prevention of dental caries lesion on the occlusal surface of the first permanent molar, especially in children who are at high risk and have barriers of access to dental care.

Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth

BACKGROUND

Dental sealants were introduced in the 1960s to help prevent dental caries, mainly in the pits and fissures of occlusal tooth surfaces. Sealants act to prevent bacteria growth that can lead to dental decay. Evidence suggests that fissure sealants are effective in preventing caries in children and adolescents compared to no sealants. Effectiveness may, however, be related to caries incidence level of the population. This is an update of a review published in 2004, 2008 and 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different types of fissure sealants in preventing caries in occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 3 August 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 3 August 2016), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 3 August 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 3 August 2016. No restrictions were placed on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sealants with no sealant or a different type of sealant material for preventing caries of occlusal surfaces of premolar or molar teeth in children and adolescents aged up to 20 years. Studies required at least 12 months follow-up. We excluded studies that compared compomers to resins/composites.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We presented outcomes for caries or no caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth as odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR). We used mean difference (MD) for mean caries increment. All measures were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model for comparisons where there were more than three trials; otherwise we used the fixed-effect model. We used GRADE methods to assess evidence quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 trials that involved a total of 7924 children; seven trials were new for this update (1693 participants). Fifteen trials evaluated the effects of resin-based sealant versus no sealant (3620 participants in 14 studies plus 575 tooth pairs in one study); three trials with evaluated glass ionomer sealant versus no sealant (905 participants); and 24 trials evaluated one type of sealant versus another (4146 participants). Children were aged from 5 to 16 years. Trials rarely reported background exposure to fluoride of trial participants or baseline caries prevalence. Resin-based sealant versus no sealant: second-, third- and fourth-generation resin-based sealants prevented caries in first permanent molars in children aged 5 to 10 years (at 24 months follow-up: OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.19, 7 trials (5 published in the 1970s; 2 in the 2010s), 1548 children randomised, 1322 children evaluated; moderate-quality evidence). If we were to assume that 16% of the control tooth surfaces were decayed during 24 months of follow-up (160 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant would reduce the proportion of carious surfaces to 5.2% (95% CI 3.13% to 7.37%). Similarly, assuming that 40% of control tooth surfaces were decayed (400 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant would reduce the proportion of carious surfaces to 6.25% (95% CI 3.84% to 9.63%). If 70% of control tooth surfaces were decayed, there would be 19% decayed surfaces in the sealant group (95% CI 12.3% to 27.2%). This caries-preventive effect was maintained at longer follow-up but evidence quality and quantity was reduced (e.g. at 48 to 54 months of follow-up: OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.28, 4 trials, 482 children evaluated; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.45, 203 children evaluated). Although studies were generally well conducted, we assessed blinding of outcome assessment for caries at high risk of bias for all trials (blinding of outcome assessment is not possible in sealant studies because outcome assessors can see and identify sealant). Glass ionomer sealant versus no sealant: was evaluated by three studies. Results at 24 months were inconclusive (very low-quality evidence). One sealant versus another sealant: the relative effectiveness of different types of sealants is unknown (very low-quality evidence). We included 24 trials that directly compared two different sealant materials. Comparisons varied in terms of types of sealant assessed, outcome measures chosen and duration of follow-up. Adverse events: only four trials assessed adverse events. No adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Resin-based sealants applied on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars are effective for preventing caries in children and adolescents. Our review found moderate-quality evidence that resin-based sealants reduced caries by between 11% and 51% compared to no sealant, when measured at 24 months. Similar benefit was seen at timepoints up to 48 months; after longer follow-up, the quantity and quality of evidence was reduced. There was insufficient evidence to judge the effectiveness of glass ionomer sealant or the relative effectiveness of different types of sealants. Information on adverse effects was limited but none occurred where this was reported. Further research with long follow-up is needed.

Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Most of the detected increment in dental caries among children and adolescents is confined to occlusal surfaces of posterior permanent molars. Dental sealants and fluoride varnishes are much used preventive options for caries. Although the effectiveness of sealants and fluoride varnishes for controlling caries as compared with no intervention has been demonstrated in clinical trials and summarised in systematic reviews, the relative effectiveness of these two interventions remains unclear. This review is an update of one first published in 2006 and last updated in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective • To evaluate the relative effectiveness of fissure sealants compared with fluoride varnishes, or fissure sealants together with fluoride varnishes compared with fluoride varnishes alone, for preventing dental caries in the occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Secondary objectives • To evaluate whether effectiveness is influenced by sealant material type and length of follow-up.• To document and report on data concerning adverse events associated with sealants and fluoride varnishes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 18 December 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 18 December 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 18 December 2015). We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching electronic databases. We screened the reference lists of identified trials and review articles for additional relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with at least 12 months of follow-up comparing fissure sealants, or fissure sealants together with fluoride varnishes, versus fluoride varnishes for preventing caries in the occlusal surfaces of permanent premolar or molar teeth, in participants younger than 20 years of age at the start of the study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We attempted to contact study authors to obtain missing or unclear information.We grouped and analysed studies on the basis of sealant material type (resin-based sealant and glass ionomer-based sealant: glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer) and different follow-up periods. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for caries or no caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth. For trials with a split-mouth design, we used the Becker-Balagtas odds ratio. For continuous outcomes and data, we used means and standard deviations to obtain mean differences. We presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods.We conducted meta-analysis using the fixed-effect model, as data from only two studies were combined. We had planned to conduct meta-analyses using a random-effects model when more than three trials were included in the meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review, we included eight trials with 1746 participants (four of the trials were new since the 2010 update). Seven trials (1127 participants) contributed to the analyses, and children involved were five to 10 years of age at the start of the trial. Sealant versus fluoride varnish Resin-based fissure sealants compared with fluoride varnishes Four trials evaluated this comparison (three of them contributing to the analyses). Compared with fluoride varnish, resin-based sealants prevented more caries in first permanent molars at two-year follow-up (two studies in the meta-analysis with pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.94; P value = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 358 children evaluated). We assessed the body of evidence as low quality. The caries-preventive benefit for sealants was maintained at longer follow-up in one trial at high risk of bias: 26.6% of sealant teeth and 55.8% of fluoride-varnished teeth had developed caries when 75 children were evaluated at nine years of follow-up. Glass ionomer-based sealants compared with fluoride varnishes Three trials evaluated this comparison: one trial with chemically cured glass ionomer and two with resin-modified glass ionomer. Researchers reported similar caries increment between study groups regardless of which glass ionomer material was used in a trial. Study designs were clinically diverse, and meta-analysis could not be conducted. The body of evidence was assessed as of very low quality. Sealant together with fluoride varnish versus fluoride varnish alone One split-mouth trial analysing 92 children at two-year follow-up found a significant difference in favour of resin-based fissure sealant together with fluoride varnish compared with fluoride varnish only (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55). The body of evidence was assessed as low quality. Adverse events Three trials (two with resin-based sealant material and one with resin-modified glass ionomer) reported that no adverse events resulted from use of sealants or fluoride varnishes. The other five studies did not mention adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, scarce and clinically diverse data are available on the comparison of sealants and fluoride varnish applications; therefore it is not possible to draw clear conclusions about possible differences in effectiveness for preventing or controlling dental caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars. The conclusions of this updated review remain the same as those of the last update (in 2010). We found some low-quality evidence suggesting the superiority of resin-based fissure sealants over fluoride varnish applications for preventing occlusal caries in permanent molars, and other low-quality evidence for benefits of resin-based sealant and fluoride varnish over fluoride varnish alone. Regarding glass ionomer sealant versus fluoride varnish comparisons, we assessed the quality of the evidence as very low and could draw no conclusions.

Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Topically-applied fluoride varnishes have been used extensively as an operator-applied caries-preventive intervention for over three decades. This review updates the first Cochrane review of fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents, which was first published in 2002.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride varnishes in preventing dental caries in children and adolescents, and to examine factors potentially modifying their effect.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 13 May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 13 May 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 13 May 2013), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 13 May 2013), LILACS and BBO via the BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 13 May 2013), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 13 May 2013), and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1945 to 13 May 2013). A search for ongoing trials was undertaken on ClinicalTrials.gov on 13 May 2013. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication in the search of the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials with blind outcome assessment used or indicated, comparing topically-applied fluoride varnish with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years during at least one year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces in both permanent (D(M)FS) and primary (d(e/m)fs) teeth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed all search results, extracted data and undertook risk of bias independently. Study authors were contacted for additional information. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction, that is the difference in mean caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. The caries increments nearest to three years were used from each included study. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random-effects meta-regression analyses. Adverse effects information was collected from the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials with 12,455 participants randomised (9595 used in analyses) were included. For the 13 that contributed data for the permanent tooth surfaces meta-analysis, the pooled D(M)FS prevented fraction estimate comparing fluoride varnish with placebo or no treatment was 43% (95% confidence interval (CI) 30% to 57%; P < 0.0001). There was substantial heterogeneity, confirmed statistically (P < 0.0001; I(2) = 75%), however this body of evidence was assessed as of moderate quality. The pooled d(e/m)fs prevented fraction estimate was 37% (95% CI 24% to 51%; P < 0.0001) for the 10 trials that contributed data for the primary tooth surfaces meta-analysis, also with some heterogeneity (P = 0.009; I(2) = 59%). Once again this body of evidence was assessed as of moderate quality. No significant association between estimates of D(M)FS or d(e/m)fs prevented fractions and the pre-specified factors of baseline caries severity, background exposure to fluorides, application features such as prior prophylaxis, concentration of fluoride, frequency of application were found. There was also no significant association between estimates of D(M)FS or d(e/m)fs prevented fractions and the post hoc factors: whether a placebo or no treatment control was used, length of follow-up, or whether individual or cluster randomisation was used, in the meta-regression models. A funnel plot of the trials in the main meta-analyses indicated no clear relationship between prevented fraction and study precision. In both methods, power is limited when few trials are included. There was little information concerning possible adverse effects or acceptability of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this updated review remain the same as those when it was first published. The review suggests a substantial caries-inhibiting effect of fluoride varnish in both permanent and primary teeth, however the quality of the evidence was assessed as moderate, as it included mainly high risk of bias studies, with considerable heterogeneity.

Comparison of the caries-preventive effect of a glass ionomer sealant and fluoride varnish on newly erupted first permanent molars of children with and without dental caries experience

PURPOSE

This longitudinal clinic study evaluated the effect of a glass ionomer sealant (GIS) and a fluoride varnish (FV) in the prevention of dental decay on newly erupted permanent molars of children with and without caries experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty children, aged 6-8 years, with all four newly erupted first permanent molars, were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 53 children without caries experience and group 2 consisted of 27 children with dental caries experience. Permanent molars of the right side were sealed with GIS and the fluoride varnish was applied on the other two permanent first molars. Evaluation of GIS retention and the effectiveness of both materials in the prevention of dental caries were performed after 6, 12 and 18 months.

RESULTS

After 18 months, of the 299 teeth, 271 (91%) showed no caries lesions and 28 presented caries lesions (9%). Teeth sealed with GIS had more carious lesions (15) than teeth with fluoride varnish (13). Most of the teeth (70%) that presented carious lesions were in group 2. Of the 138 sealed teeth, only one showed GIS to be totally present, 95 were partially present and 42 teeth were absent.

CONCLUSION

The caries-preventive effect was very similar between both treatments. The presence of dental caries prevailed in the children with caries experience.

Sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth

BACKGROUND

Dental sealants were introduced in the 1960s to help prevent dental caries in the pits and fissures of mainly the occlusal tooth surfaces. Sealants act to prevent the growth of bacteria that can lead to dental decay. There is evidence to suggest that fissure sealants are effective in preventing caries in children and adolescents when compared to no sealants. Their effectiveness may be related to the caries prevalence in the population.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different types of fissure sealants in preventing caries in permanent teeth in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 1 November 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 1 November 2012); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 November 2012); SCISEARCH, CAplus, INSPEC, NTIS and PASCAL via STN Easy (to 1 September 2012); and DARE, NHS EED and HTA (via the CAIRS web interface to 29 March 2012 and thereafter via Metaxis interface to September 2012). There were no language or publication restrictions. We also searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov (to 23 July 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of at least 12 months duration comparing sealants for preventing caries of occlusal or approximal surfaces of premolar or molar teeth with no sealant or different type of sealant in children and adolescents under 20 years of age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for caries or no caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth. For trials with a split-mouth design, the Becker-Balagtas odds ratio was used. For mean caries increment we used the mean difference. All measures are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. We conducted the meta-analyses using a random-effects model for those comparisons where there were more than three trials in the same comparison, otherwise the fixed-effect model was used.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-four trials are included in the review. Twelve trials evaluated the effects of sealant compared with no sealant (2575 participants) (one of those 12 trials stated only number of tooth pairs); 21 trials evaluated one type of sealant compared with another (3202 participants); and one trial evaluated two different types of sealant and no sealant (752 participants). Children were aged from 5 to 16 years. Trials rarely reported the background exposure to fluoride of the trial participants or the baseline caries prevalence.- Resin-based sealant compared with no sealant: Compared to control without sealant, second or third or fourth generation resin-based sealants prevented caries in first permanent molars in children aged 5 to 10 years (at 2 years of follow-up odds ratio (OR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.19, six trials (five published in the 1970s and one in 2012), at low risk of bias, 1259 children randomised, 1066 children evaluated, moderate quality evidence). If we were to assume that 40% of the control tooth surfaces were decayed during 2 years of follow-up (400 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant will reduce the proportion of the carious surfaces to 6.25% (95% CI 3.84% to 9.63%); similarly if we were to assume that 70% of the control tooth surfaces were decayed  (700 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant will reduce the proportion of the carious surfaces to 18.92% (95% CI 12.28% to 27.18%). This caries preventive effect was maintained at longer follow-up but both the quality and quantity of the evidence was reduced (e.g. at 48 to 54 months of follow-up OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.28, four trials (two studies at low risk of bias and two studies at high risk of bias), 482 children evaluated; risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.45, one study at unclear risk of bias, 203 children evaluated).- Glass ionomer sealant compared with no sealant: There is insufficient evidence to make any conclusions about whether glass ionomer sealants, prevent caries compared to no sealant at 24-month follow-up (mean difference in DFS -0.18, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.03, one trial at unclear risk of bias, 452 children randomised, 404 children evaluated, very low quality evidence).- Sealant compared with another sealant: The relative effectiveness of different types of sealants remained inconclusive in this review. Twenty-one trials directly compared two different sealant materials. Several different comparisons were made according to type of sealant, outcome measure and duration of follow-up. There was great variation with regard to comparisons, outcomes, time of outcomes reported and background fluoride exposure if this was reported.Fifteen trials compared glass ionomer with resin sealants and there is insufficient evidence to make any conclusions about the superiority of either of the two materials. Although there were 15 trials the event rate was very low in many of these which restricted their contribution to the results.Three trials compared resin-modified glass ionomer with resin sealant and reported inconsistent results.Two small low quality trials compared polyacid-modified resin sealants with resin sealants and found no difference in caries after 2 years.- Adverse effects: Only two trials mentioned adverse effects and stated that no adverse effects were reported by participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The application of sealants is a recommended procedure to prevent or control caries. Sealing the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars in children and adolescents reduces caries up to 48 months when compared to no sealant, after longer follow-up the quantity and quality of the evidence is reduced. The review revealed that sealants are effective in high risk children but information on the magnitude of the benefit of sealing in other conditions is scarce. The relative effectiveness of different types of sealants has yet to be established.

Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

The majority of the detected increment in dental caries among children and adolescents is confined to pit and fissure surfaces of first molars.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants with fluoride varnishes in the prevention of dental decay on occlusal surfaces.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and 10 other databases were searched to November 2009. There were no language or publication restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Random or quasi-random allocation study design; sealants versus fluoride varnish or sealants and fluoride varnish combination versus fluoride varnish alone; and subjects under 20 years of age. The primary outcome of interest was the increment in the numbers of carious occlusal surfaces of permanent premolars and molars.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of trials. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for differences between intervention and control groups and in split-mouth studies for differences of paired tooth surfaces being carious or not. No data could be combined or meta-analyses undertaken due to the clinical and methodological diversity between study designs.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Results of one split-mouth study at low risk of bias and one cluster randomised study at moderate/high risk of bias revealed the effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants to be statistically significantly higher than an application of fluoride varnish every 6 months in preventing occlusal decays of first molars at 23 months (with a RR of 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.95); and at 4 years and 9 years (with a RR of 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.84 and RR of 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79, respectively). One small parallel group study at moderate/high risk of bias failed to find a difference between sealants and fluoride varnishes. Further, one split-mouth study at low risk of bias with 24 months of follow-up found significantly more caries on the fluoride varnished tooth surfaces, compared to sealed plus fluoride varnished surfaces, with a RR of 0.36 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.61).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was some evidence on the superiority of pit and fissure sealants over fluoride varnish application in the prevention of occlusal decays. However, current scarce data limit recommendations on whether to apply pit and fissure sealants or fluoride varnishes on occlusal surfaces.

Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Although pit and fissure sealants are effective in preventing caries, their efficacy may be related to the caries prevalence in the population.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the caries prevention of pit and fissure sealants in children and adolescents.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 3) and MEDLINE (to October 2007); EMBASE (to June 2007); SCISEARCH, CAplus, INSPEC, NTIS, PASCAL, DARE, NHS EED and HTA (to February 2008). There were no language or publication restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of at least 12 months in duration comparing sealants with no sealant or sealants from different classes of materials for preventing occlusal caries in children and adolescents under 20 years. The primary outcome was the increment in the numbers of carious occlusal surfaces of premolars and molars.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and quality assessed trials. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for differences between intervention and control groups and in split-mouth studies for differences of paired tooth surfaces being carious or not. The meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the review; 7 studies provided data for comparison of sealant versus control without sealant and 10 studies for comparison of sealant versus sealant. Five split-mouth studies and one parallel group study with 5 to 10 year old children found a significant difference in favour of second or third generation resin-based sealants on first permanent molars, compared to a control without sealant, with a pooled RR of 0.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.20), 0.22 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.34), 0.30 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.40), and 0.40 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.51) at 12, 24, 36 and 48-54 months follow up, respectively. Further, one of those studies with 9 years of follow up found significantly more caries in the control group compared to resin sealant group; 27% of sealed surfaces were decayed compared to 77% of surfaces without sealant.The results of the studies comparing different sealant materials were conflicting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sealing is a recommended procedure to prevent caries of the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars. The effectiveness of sealants is obvious at high caries risk but information on the benefits of sealing specific to different caries risks is lacking.

Comparison of the effectiveness of fissure sealants in Finland, Sweden, and Greece

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of sealant treatment in preventing dental restorations due to caries in a practice-based research network in Finland, Sweden, and Greece.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Times of tooth emergence, sealing treatment, and dental caries were compiled from the dental charts of 4735 subjects born in 1970-72 in Finland and in 1980-82 in Finland, Sweden, and Greece. Survival time between tooth emergence and placement of first restoration was measured and estimated using survival analysis methodology.

RESULTS

At the end of follow-up (7-10+ years), 30-40% of sealed molars and 60-80% of non-sealed molars were restored. Early sealant placement compared to late sealing did not result in significantly higher survival of 1st molars. The strategy of sealing the 1st molars only in high caries risk subjects was as effective as sealing all the molars and premolars routinely without caries risk determination.

CONCLUSIONS

The sealing of all molar fissures proved to be no more effective than sealing risk fissures of subjects. Early sealing did not result in any better outcome than late sealing. The effectiveness of sealant treatment in preventing dental restorations is dependent on the caries risk of individuals and caries prevalence of the country.

Compressive Strength, Surface Roughness, Fluoride Release and Recharge of Four New Fluoride-releasing Fissure Sealants

The aim of this study was to investigate the compressive strength and surface roughness of two glass ionomer cements and two resin-based fissure sealants before and after fluoride release and recharge. Twenty-one specimens were prepared and divided into three groups for each material. First group was loaded in compression until failure. Fluoride released was measured from the remaining specimens, and then the second group of seven specimens was loaded at 28th day. The remaining seven specimens were exposed to 0.05% NaF solution and 1.23% APF gel. Fluoride amount was measured, and the last group was loaded at 70th day. Surface roughness measurement of five more disk-shaped specimens from each material was also carried out. After exposure to APF gel, all materials were recharged. At the end of experimental period, it was found that surface roughness increased, whereas compressive strength decreased, over time. In conclusion, fluoride-releasing fissure sealants could act as show, rechargeable fluoride release systems. However, if a fissure sealant exhibited high fluoride release, it had inferior mechanical properties.

Retention of resin-based pit and fissure sealants: A systematic review

The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review on the retention of resin-based sealants (RBSs) according to the material used and the clinical procedure. An electronic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and SCOPUS was completed by a hand search in conference proceedings. One hundred and twenty-four studies were identified, 31 of which were included. The retention rate of auto-polymerized and light-cured RBSs did not differ significantly. Light-cured RBSs had a significantly higher retention rate than fluoride-containing light-cured RBSs at 48 months (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72-0.89) and more. Concerning the clinical procedure, the scarcity of well-conducted studies made judgement difficult, except for the isolation stage. If using a rubber dam did not affect retention of auto-polymerized RBSs, it did for fluoride-containing light-cured RBSs (RR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.51-2.73).

Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

The majority of the detected increment in dental caries is confined to pit and fissure surfaces of first molars. Application of pit and fissure sealants and topical fluorides are widely used procedures in the prevention of decay, and their effectiveness in caries prevention has been proved by systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants with fluoride varnishes in the prevention of dental decay on occlusal surfaces.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searching was performed on the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (last update November 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 4), MEDLINE (from 1966 to December 2005), EMBASE (from 1974 to November 2004), SIGLE (from 1976 to December 2004), SCISEARCH, CAplus, INSPEC, JICST-EPLUS, NTIS, PASCAL (last update December 2004), DARE, NHS EED and HTA (last update November 2005). Reference lists from articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria in this review and from review articles based on the search of MEDLINE were searched for additional relevant articles. Conference abstracts published as books or journals and handsearched by the Cochrane Oral Health Group were also included.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria for study selection were: random or quasi-random allocation study design; sealants versus fluoride varnish or sealants and fluoride varnish combination versus fluoride varnish alone; included studies included caries documentation on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars and the subjects were under 20 years of age. Both parallel and split-mouth study designs were accepted. The primary outcome of interest was the increment in the numbers of carious occlusal surfaces of premolars and molars. A study was excluded if sealants and fluoride varnish were not compared with each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors carried out the baseline searches, selecting the papers on the basis of the title, keywords and abstract and making decisions about the eligibility and data extractions. The same review authors assessed the methodological quality of all included studies: for example, the allocation concealment, blinding, and completeness of follow up. Authors of the studies were contacted for additional information. Risk ratios (RR) as effect estimates were calculated for the differences in whether surfaces were carious or not in the treatment groups, along with the appropriate standard errors and 95% confidence intervals (CI). No data could be combined or meta-analyses undertaken due to the clinical and methodological diversity between study designs.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Three of the four studies compared the effectiveness of sealants with fluoride varnish application, and one study compared the effectiveness of sealants and fluoride varnish combination with fluoride varnish alone. Results of two studies revealed the effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants to be statistically significantly higher than an application of fluoride varnish every 6 months in preventing occlusal decays of first molars at 23 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95) and at 9 years follow up (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79). One of these studies was classed as at low risk of bias, one of moderate to high risk. One small study at moderate to high risk of bias failed to find a statistically significant difference between sealants and fluoride varnishes. One study of low risk of bias found a statistically significant difference in favour of the sealants and fluoride varnish combination compared with merely fluoride varnish at 24 months follow up with RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.61). The age of children in the included studies was 5 to 9 years. Allocation concealment was classified adequate in two of these four studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was some evidence of the superiority of pit and fissure sealants over fluoride varnish application in the prevention of occlusal decays. However, it remained unclear to what extent there is difference between the effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants and fluoride varnishes. Therefore, more high quality research is needed. No recommendations for the clinical practice could be given and the benefit of pit and fissure sealants and fluoride varnishes should be considered locally and individually.

Randomized pilot study to disseminate caries-control services in dentist offices

BACKGROUND

To determine whether education and financial incentives increased dentists' delivery of fluoride varnish and sealants to at risk children covered by capitation dental insurance in Washington state (U.S.).

METHODS

In 1999, 53 dental offices in Washington Dental Service's capitation dental plan were invited to participate in the study, and consenting offices were randomized to intervention (n = 9) and control (n = 10) groups. Offices recruited 689 capitation children aged 6-14 and at risk for caries, who were followed for 2 years. Intervention offices received provider education and fee-for-service reimbursement for delivering fluoride varnish and sealants. Insurance records were used to calculate office service rates for fluoride, sealants, and restorations. Parents completed mail surveys after follow-up to measure their children's dental utilization, dental satisfaction, dental fear and oral health status. Regression models estimated differences in service rates between intervention and control offices, and compared survey measures between groups.

RESULTS

Nineteen offices (34%) consented to participate in the study. Fluoride and sealant rates were greater in the intervention offices than the control offices, but the differences were not statistically significant. Restoration rates were lower in the intervention offices than the control offices. Parents in the intervention group reported their children had less dental fear than control group parents.

CONCLUSION

Due to low dentist participation the study lacked power to detect an intervention effect on dentists' delivery of caries-control services. The intervention may have reduced children's dental fear.

Sealant and fluoride varnish in caries: a randomized trial

Little is known about the effect of discontinuation of sealant or fluoride varnish. The purpose of this study was to compare sealant with fluoride varnish in the prevention of occlusal caries in permanent first molars of children over a nine-year period: 4 yrs for program evaluation plus 5 yrs of discontinuation. A clinical trial was conducted on three groups of six- to eight-year-old schoolchildren: a control group (n = 45); a group (n = 37) in which sealant was applied and reapplied up to 36 mos; and a group (n = 38) in which fluoride varnish was applied and re-applied up to 42 mos. Percent caries reduction was studied in these initially healthy molars with complete occlusal eruption: 129 (control), 113 (sealant), and 129 (varnish) molars met inclusion criteria. Of these, 76.7%, 26.6%, and 55.8% had developed occlusal caries at 9 yrs, which implies caries reductions of 65.4% (SE = 8.5%) for sealants vs. control and 27.3% (SE = 10.2%) for varnish vs. control. Furthermore, the varnish program was not effective during the discontinuation period.

Fluoride varnishes in caries prevention

The first fluoride varnishes were developed during the 1960s (Duraphat) sodium fluoride varnish) and 1970s (Fluor Protector) silane fluoride varnish) to prolong the contact time between fluoride and enamel. Fluoride varnishes adhere to enamel, and calcium fluoride formed after application acts as a long-term reservoir of fluoride. Currently Duraphat varnish is the most widely used topical fluoride for professional application in Europe, and the use of fluoride varnishes is increasing in the USA. Duraphat varnish has been effective in three decades of clinical studies, but the results of Fluor Protector varnish are inconclusive. The percent caries reductions found in the 1990s have generally been lower than those reported in earlier studies, probably because of the higher exposure to other preventive measures in the more recent studies. In studies comparing Duraphat varnish and APF gel, Duraphat varnish was equally or more effective than APF gel. Sealants were most effective in preventing occlusal caries. Four applications per year, or three weekly applications once a year, have been found to be effective. However, several studies have shown that two applications per year may provide comparable results. Application is fast and easy. Professional prophylaxis is not necessary, and the patient can leave immediately after the treatment. No acute toxicity has been reported after using any fluoride varnish.

Professional fluoride varnish treatment for caries control: a systematic review of clinical trials

The aim of this paper was systematically to evaluate the caries-preventive effect of professional fluoride varnish treatments. A search of the literature for articles published between 1966 and August 2003 was carried out in electronic databases, reference lists of articles, and selected textbooks in accordance with the strategy of the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. Out of 302 identified papers, 24 randomized and controlled clinical trials comparing fluoride varnish with placebo, no active treatment or other fluoride preventive regimens of at least 2 years' study duration were included. The trials that met the inclusion criteria were assessed independently and systematically by at least two reviewers and scored from A to C according to predetermined criteria for methodology and performance. The main outcome measure was the preventive fraction expressed as a percentage. The results displayed limited evidence (evidence level 3) for the caries preventive effect of topical applications of fluoride varnishes in permanent teeth. The average prevented fraction was 30% (0-69%) when compared with untreated controls. Inconclusive evidence (evidence level 4) was found for fluoride varnish treatment in the primary dentition and in adults. This systematic review reinforces the need for future dinical research of high quality, incorporating modern concepts of dinical performance and evaluation to assess dental caries control using professional fluoride varnish.

Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Fissure sealants used on occlusal tooth surfaces were introduced in the 1960s for protecting pits and fissures from dental caries. Although sealants have demonstrated to be effective in preventing caries, their efficacy may be related to the background caries prevalence in the population.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the caries prevention of resin based pit and fissure sealants and glass ionomer cements or sealants in children and adolescents.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (last update December 2002), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE via OVID (1966 to December 2002), EMBASE (1974 to February 2002), SCISEARCH, SIGLE, CAplus, INSPEC, JICST-EPLUS, NTIS, PASCAL (February 2002) and DARE, NHS EED, HTA (March 2002). Reference lists from included articles and review articles were searched for additional relevant articles. All relevant studies in most languages were considered and translated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of at least 12 months in duration in which sealants were used for preventing caries in children and adolescents under 20 years of age were included. The primary outcome was the increment in the numbers of carious occlusal surfaces of premolars and molars.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In the first phase, two reviewers independently examined whether a given study was likely to be relevant on the basis of the title, key words and abstract. In the second phase, four of the reviewers independently classified studies to be included in final analyses. Study authors were contacted for additional information. In the split-mouth studies relative risk ratios were calculated for the paired differences of tooth surfaces being carious or not. In studies comparing resin based sealant with no treatment, fixed effect meta-analyses were used to combine the estimates of relative risk ratios. In one parallel group study, the mean DFS data as continuous data, the effect estimate being the difference in mean DFS, was calculated from data of occlusal surfaces of teeth included in the test and control groups.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included in this review of which seven trials were split-mouth studies and one a parallel group study. Six studies provided data for comparing sealant with no treatment and three studies for comparing glass ionomers with resin based sealants. The overall effectiveness of resin based sealants in preventing dental decay on first molars was high. Based on five split-mouth studies with 5 to 10 year old children there were significant differences in favour of the second-generation resin sealant compared with no treatment with pooled relative risk values of 0.14, 0.24, 0.30, 0.43 at 12, 24, 36 and 48 to 54 months respectively. The reductions in caries therefore ranged from 86% at 12 months to 57% at 48 to 54 months. The 24 month parallel group study comparing second-generation resin sealant with control in 12 to 13 year old children found also significantly more caries in the control group children with DFS = 0.65 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.83). Allocation concealment was classified adequate in three of these six studies. However the information on background levels of caries in the population was insufficient to conduct further analyses to estimate the effectiveness of resin based sealants related to baseline caries prevalence. Only one study provided data for the comparison between glass ionomer sealant and control. Based on this, there is not enough information to say whether ionomer sealants are effective, or not. The results of three studies comparing resin sealants with glass ionomer sealants were conflicting and the meta-analyses were not carried out.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Sealing with resin based sealants is a recommended procedure to prevent caries of the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars. However, we recommend that the caries prevalence level of both individuals and the population should be taken into account. In practice, the benefit of sealing should be considered locally and specified guidelines for clinicians should be used. The methodological quality of published studies concerning pit and fissure sealants was poorer than expected.

Caries-preventive effect of fissure sealants: a systematic review

The objectives of this study were to evaluate systematically the evidence of the caries-preventive effect of fissure sealing of occlusal tooth surfaces and to examine factors potentially modifying the effect. The search strategies included electronic databases, reference lists of articles, and selected textbooks. Inclusion criteria were randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials or controlled clinical trials comparing fissure sealing with no treatment or another preventive treatment in children up to 14 years of age at the start; the outcome measure was caries increment; the diagnostic criteria had been described; and the follow-up time was at least 2 years. Inclusion decisions were taken and grading of the studies was done independently by two of the authors. The main measure of effect was relative risk reduction. Thirteen studies using resin-based or glass ionomer sealant materials were included in the final analysis. The results showed that most studies were performed during the 1970s and a single application had been utilized. The relative caries risk reduction pooled estimate of resin-based sealants on permanent 1st molars was 33% (relative risk = 0.67; CI = 0.55-0.83). The effect depended on retention of the sealant. In conclusion, the review suggests limited evidence that fissure sealing of 1st permanent molars with resin-based materials has a caries-preventive effect. The evidence is incomplete for permanent 2nd molars, premolars and primary molars and for glass ionomer cements. Overall, there remains a need for further trials of high quality, particularly in child populations with a low and a high caries risk, respectively.

Prevention. Part 7: professionally applied topical fluorides for caries prevention

This paper reviews the use of professionally applied topical fluorides (PATF) in caries prevention. PATFs are indicated for children and adults with one or more decayed smooth surfaces and/or those who are at high caries risk. Frequency of administration depends on the patient's caries risk, and is usually every 6 months. The effectiveness of fluoride varnish and gel applications has been well established in caries prevention trials involving permanent teeth. Although both types are effective, varnish may be preferred because it is easier to apply, reduces the risk of fluoride over-ingestion, and has greater patient acceptance. Fluoride foams are similar products to gels, but have not been tested clinically. The use of in-office two-part rinses is not recommended because they have not been proven effective. A cleaning, or prophylaxis, is not necessary before the application of topical fluoride for caries prevention. In conclusion, when used appropriately, PATFs are a safe, effective means of reducing caries risk among high-risk populations.

Fluoride varnish for caries prevention: comparisons with other preventive agents and recommendations for a community-based protocol

This paper reviews fluoride varnish (FV) literature to develop a community-based protocol for people with special needs or those who are caries susceptible. Safety, personnel and cost issues are discussed and existing NIH, CDC and WHO recommendations are presented. FV studies are assessed with respect to type of FV to use and frequency of application. FV is compared with studies using other caries preventive agents: 0.2% NaF mouthrinse, acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel, dental sealants, water fluoridation and chlorhexidine. Because there are few FV studies among special need populations, conclusions are based on available literature and public health principles. If personnel are available, FV use is preferred to APF gel and may be preferable to 0.2% NaF mouthrinse. FV is more effective in optimally fluoridated communities. If many occlusal surfaces are at risk, sealants should be applied. Additional combinations and frequencies of preventive agents should be tested, especially for people with special needs and high caries risk adults.

Topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels or varnishes) for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Topical fluoride therapy (TFT) in the form of varnish, gel, mouthrinse or toothpaste has been used extensively as a caries-preventive intervention for over three decades.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride varnishes, gels, mouthrinses, and toothpastes in the prevention of dental caries in children and to examine factors potentially modifying their effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (May 2000), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2000), plus several other databases. We handsearched journals, reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials with blind outcome assessment, comparing fluoride varnish, gel, mouthrinse, or toothpaste with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years during at least 1 year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces (D(M)FS).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion decisions, quality assessment and data extraction were duplicated in a random sample of one third of studies, and consensus achieved by discussion or a third party. Authors were contacted for missing data. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF) that is the difference in mean caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. Random effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random effects metaregression analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 144 studies included. For the 133 that contributed data for meta-analysis (involving 65,169 children) the D(M)FS pooled prevented fraction estimate was 26% (95% CI, 24% to 29%; p < 0.0001). There was substantial heterogeneity, confirmed statistically (p < 0.0001), but the direction of effect was consistent. The effect of topical fluoride varied according to type of control group used, type of TFT used, mode/setting of TFT use, initial caries levels and intensity of TFT application, but was not influenced by exposure to water fluoridation or other fluoride sources. D(M)FS PF was on average 14% (95% CI, 5% to 23%; p = 0.002) higher in non-placebo controlled trials, 14% (95% CI, 2% to 26%; p = 0.25) higher in fluoride varnish trials compared with all others, and 10% (95% CI, -17% to -3%; p = 0.003) lower in trials of unsupervised home use compared with self applied supervised and operator-applied. There was a 0.7% increase in the PF per unit increase in baseline caries (95% CI, 0.2% to 1.2%; p = 0.004).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of topical fluorides have been firmly established on a sizeable body of evidence from randomized controlled trials. While the formal examination of sources of heterogeneity between studies has been important in the overall conclusions reached, these should be interpreted with caution. We were unable to reach definite conclusions about any adverse effects that might result from the use of topical fluorides, because data reported in the trials are scarce.

Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Topically applied fluoride varnishes have been used extensively as an operator-applied caries-preventive intervention for over two decades.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride varnishes in the prevention of dental caries in children and to examine factors potentially modifying their effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Multiple electronic database searches, reference lists of articles, journal handsearch, selected authors and manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials with blind outcome assessment, comparing fluoride varnish with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years during at least one year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces (D(M)FS).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion decisions, quality assessment and data extraction were duplicated in a random sample of one third of studies, and consensus achieved by discussion or a third party. Study authors were contacted for missing data. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF), that is the difference in caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the increment in the control group. Random effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random effects meta-regression analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies were included, involving 2709 children. For the seven that contributed data for the main meta-analysis, the D(M)FS pooled prevented fraction estimate was 46% (95% CI, 30% to 63%; p<0.0001). There was substantial heterogeneity, confirmed statistically (p<0.0001). The pooled d(e/m)fs prevented fraction estimate was 33% (95% CI, 19% to 48%; p<0.0001). No significant association between estimates of D(M)FS prevented fractions and baseline caries severity or background exposure to fluorides was found in meta-regression, and a funnel plot of the seven studies indicated no relationship between prevented fraction and study precision. In both methods, power is limited when only a few trials are included.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The review suggests a substantial caries-inhibiting effect of fluoride varnish in both the permanent and the deciduous dentitions based largely on trials with no treatment controls. There is little information concerning acceptability of treatment or possible side effects in the included trials. Given the relatively poor quality of most of the included studies and the wide confidence intervals around the estimates of effect, there remains a need for further trials. It is important that these trials should be of high quality and include assessment of potential adverse effects.

Oral health in the United States: the post-fluoride generation

Tremendous strides have been made in reducing the incidence of tooth decay, periodontal diseases, and associated loss of teeth in adults and children since the inception of community water fluoridation programs. Yet the disadvantaged and poor have not fully shared in the benefits. Other challenges to oral health remain. Oral cancer and related smoking and smokeless tobacco use remain major public health problems. Access to preventive and therapeutic dental care is far from universal. Public health programs similar in commitment to the approach of community water fluoridation programs initiated in the 1950s and 1960s are needed to address neglected oral health needs of underserved and high-risk populations in the United States.

Fluoride varnishes. A review of their clinical use, cariostatic mechanism, efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

This is a review of the clinical use, cariostatic mechanism, efficacy, safety and toxicity of fluoride varnishes.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors reviewed and summarized in vitro, in vivo and in situ studies; clinical trials; demonstration programs; position papers; and editorials published in English in the biomedical literature since 1966.

RESULTS

Extensive laboratory research and clinical trials conducted in Europe and elsewhere show that fluoride varnishes are as efficacious as other caries-preventive agents. Fluoride varnishes are widely used in European caries-preventive programs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared these products only as medical devices to be used as cavity liners and for the treatment of hypersensitive teeth. These products have not yet been cleared for marketing in the United States as caries-preventive agents.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Three fluoride varnishes are currently available in the United States. Semiannual applications are the most proven treatment regimen. Varnishes are safe and easy to apply and set in contact with intraoral moisture.

Dental materials: 1997 literature review

This review of the published literature on dental materials for the year 1997 has been compiled by the Dental Materials Panel of UK. It continues a series of annual reviews started in 1973. Emphasis has been placed upon publications, which report upon the materials science or clinical performance of the materials. The review has been divided by accepted materials classifications (fissure sealants, glass polyalkenoate cements, dentine bonding, dental amalgam, endodontic materials, casting alloys, ceramometallic restorations and resin-bonded bridges, ceramics, denture base resins and soft lining materials, impression materials, dental implant materials, orthodontic materials, biomechanics and image processing, resin composites, and casting investment materials and waxes). Three hundred and thirty three articles have been reviewed.