Summary of findings 4. Fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealants versus resin‐based sealants.

Fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealants versus resin‐based sealants
Population: children with caries‐free second primary molars, aged 4–8 years Settings: dental clinic, Turkey and Spain Intervention: fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealants Comparison: resin‐based sealants
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Risk with fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealants	Risk with resin‐based sealants
Development of ≥ 1 new carious lesion (caries incidence) Follow‐up: 6–24 months	N/A insufficient quantitative information available		N/A	69 (2 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa	Due to the different sealant materials evaluated, data reporting (split‐mouth studies reported as parallel‐group studies) and the very low number of tooth surfaces developing new carious lesions, we were unable to pool these data in a meta‐analysis.
Progression of non‐cavitated enamel caries	No studies reported this outcome.
Sealant retention Complete or partial retention of sealant Follow‐up: 6–24 months	—	—	Effect estimate not calculable	69 (2 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowb	Due to the different sealant materials evaluated, data reporting (split‐mouth studies reported as parallel‐group studies) and the very low number of sealants that were lost, we were unable to pool these data in a meta‐analysis.
Adverse events	No studies reported this outcome.
*The basis for the assumed risk is the control group risk. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; N/A: not applicable.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

^aWe judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for this comparison, and downgraded two levels for imprecision owing to the small study sample sizes and very low numbers of events.
^bWe judged the certainty of the evidence to be very low for this outcome, and downgraded two levels for imprecision owing to the small study sample sizes and low numbers of failures, and one level for inconsistency of results.