CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 391Dental Health and Care UtilizationDental materials and restorationsEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments

Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth

Open access
Ahovuo-Saloranta, Anneli, Forss, Helena, Walsh, Tanya, Nordblad, Anne, Mäkelä, Marjukka, Worthington, Helen V·2017·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001830.pub5PMC PMC6483295
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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-ba

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd001830.pub5

Cites

176 of 176 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sealed non-cavitated lesions demonstrate a diminished risk of progression relative to unsealed lesions.

    “Research indicates that sealed non-cavitated lesions demonstrate a diminished risk of progression relative to unsealed lesions, highlighting the safety and efficacy of sealant application [26].”

    From Minimally Invasive Techniques for Managing Dental Caries in Children: Efficacy, Applications, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

  • Sealants substantially reduce the risk of caries in permanent molars by 76% within two years of application, sustaining an effectiveness of 60% after four years.

    “A systematic review demonstrated that salaries substantially reduce the risk of caries in permanent molars by 76% within two years of application, sustaining an effectiveness of 60% after four years [26].”

    From Minimally Invasive Techniques for Managing Dental Caries in Children: Efficacy, Applications, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

  • Resin-based sealants exhibit superior retention and mechanical strength due to their capacity to establish micromechanical bonds with enamel, but require stringent moisture control.

    “Resin-based sealants exhibit superior retention and mechanical strength due to their capacity to establish micromechanical bonds with enamel. However, the implementation of these methods requires stringent moisture control, making the process especially susceptible to technical discrepancies [26].”

    From Minimally Invasive Techniques for Managing Dental Caries in Children: Efficacy, Applications, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

12 of the 188 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ahovuo-Saloranta, A., Forss, H., Walsh, T., Nordblad, A., Mäkelä, M., & Worthington, H. V.
Affiliations
  • University of Tampere (FI)
  • Tampere University Hospital (FI)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (FI)
  • THL (National Institute for Health and Welfare); PO Box 30 Helsinki Finland 00271
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-07-31
Volume
2017
Issue
7
Pages
CD001830-CD001830
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd001830.pub5
PMC
PMC6483295
OpenAlex
W2741425763
Cited by
391
References
188
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • STM:n Hallinnonalan avoin julkaisuarkisto (Julkari) (submittedVersion)
  • WOS
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Keywords
pit and fissure sealants, dental caries prevention, permanent teeth, occlusal surface, resin-based sealers, glass ionomer sealants, sealants, children and adolescents, caries incidence, caries increment, molars, premolars, caries risk, risk of bias, quality of evidence, cost-effectiveness, cost-effectiveness analysis
MeSH terms
Acrylic Resins, Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Dental Caries, Dental Occlusion, Humans, Molar, Pit and Fissure Sealants, Silicon Dioxide, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Dentition, Permanent

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review