Summary of findings 5. Flowable resin composite versus resin‐based sealants.
| Flowable resin composite versus resin‐based sealants | ||||||
|
Population: children who were regular dental attenders with caries‐free first or second primary molars Settings: Public Health service clinic in Brazil Intervention: flowable resin composite 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 resin‐based sealants | Risk with flowable resin composite | |||||
| Development of ≥ 1 new carious lesion (caries incidence) | No studies reported this outcome. | |||||
| Progression of non‐cavitated enamel caries | No studies reported this outcome. | |||||
|
Sealant retention Complete or partial retention of sealant Follow‐up: 12 months |
— | — | Effect estimate not calculable. All sealants were completely or partially retained. |
40 (1 RCT) | ⨁⨁◯◯ Lowa | All sealants were retained or partially retained in both groups. |
| Adverse events | No studies reported this outcome. | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. 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; RCT: randomised controlled trial. | ||||||
| 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 downgraded the evidence two levels due to study limitations arising from lack of blinding and imprecision from a single study with a small number of participants with no failures.