1. Caries data from studies with binary outcome.
| RESIN FISSURE SEALANT (FS) VS FLUORIDE VARNISH (F): 23 to 24 MONTHS | |||||||
| Split‐mouth studies | Study | Both sound |
FS sound F carious |
FS carious F sound |
Both carious | Proportion of decayed control tooth surfaces to total control surfaces | Becker‐Balagtas marginal OR (95% CI) |
|
Raadal 1984 (sealant better) |
131 | 31 | 15 | 31 | 0.30 | OR = 0.67 (0.48 to 0.93) P value = 0.02 ICC 0.44 |
|
| Parallel‐group studies | Study | Description of data | OR (95% CI) | ||||
|
Liu 2012 (no difference) |
OR based on model of multi‐level GEE logistic regression Additional information obtained from study author |
OR = 0.87 (0.34 to 2.20) |
|||||
| POOLED | OR = 0.69 (0.50 to 0.94) |
||||||
| RESIN FISSURE SEALANT (FS) VS FLUORIDE VARNISH (F): 4 YEARS | |||||||
| Parallel‐group studies | Study | Description of data | RR (95% CI) | ||||
|
Bravo 2005 (sealant better) |
Results presented as risk ratios (RRs) with cluster‐corrected standard error (SE). A school class is a cluster, but several sealed and fluoride‐varnished teeth were present per child. Study authors calculated cluster‐corrected effect estimates when requested | RR = 0.42 (0.21 to 0.84) P value = 0.01 |
|||||
| RESIN FISSURE SEALANT (FS) VS FLUORIDE VARNISH (F): 9 YEARS | |||||||
| Parallel‐group studies | Study | Description of data | RR (95% CI) | ||||
|
Bravo 2005 (sealant better) |
Results presented as risk ratios (RRs) with cluster‐corrected standard error (SE). A school class is a cluster, but several sealed and fluoride‐varnished teeth were present per child. Study authors calculated cluster‐corrected effect estimates when requested. 26.6% of sealant teeth and 55.8% of fluoride‐varnished teeth had developed caries after 9 years (76.7% of control teeth without treatments) |
RR = 0.48 (0.29 to 0.79) P value = 0.004 |
|||||
| RESIN FISSURE SEALANT PLUS FLUORIDE VARNISH (FS + F) VS FLUORIDE VARNISH (F): 2 YEARS | |||||||
| Split‐mouth studies | Study | Both sound |
FS + F sound F carious |
FS + F carious F sound |
Both carious | Proportion of decayed control tooth surfaces to total control surfaces | Becker‐Balagtas marginal OR (95% CI) |
|
Splieth 2001 (sealant + fluoride varnish better than fluoride varnish alone) |
129 | 32 | 7 | 7 | 0.22 | OR = 0.30 (0.17 to 0.55) P value < 0.0001 |
|
| RESIN‐MODIFIED GLASSIONOMER FISSURE SEALANT (FS) VS FLUORIDE VARNISH (F): 1 YEAR | |||||||
| Parallel‐group studies | Study | Description of data | OR (95% CI) | ||||
|
Florio 2001 (no difference) |
Clustered data (several teeth per child). Data decided to analyse at a child level (i.e. data were dichotomised ‐ did a child have caries or not) because decayed teeth were very few. Additional information obtained from study author indicated that the two decayed surfaces in the fluoride varnish group were present in different children. Detailed data Analysis 2.1 | OR = 0.18 (0.01 to 4.27) P value = 0.29 |
|||||