ARE GLASS CARBOMER SEALANTS MORE EFFICIENT IN PREVENTING CARIOUS LESIONS IN CHILDREN’S PERMANENT MOLARS WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER SEALANT MATERIALS? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review was performed to evaluate the efficacy of glass carbomer when compared with other sealant materials in preventing carious lesions in children and retention in pit and fissures. Sources of data: The paper included only randomized clinical trials that compared pit and fissure sealants with glass carbomer and other sealant materials in children’s permanent molars with at least six-month
follow-up. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library and Grey literature (December 2020/January 2021). The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment of the studies and GRADE approach for the quality of the evidence. Meta-analysis was performed on studies from which data could be achieved. Synthesis of data: A total of 1685 papers were identified, 54 were selected for review. From these, 40 articles were excluded after the reading of the abstract and 14 articles were put aside for assessment. Eight papers were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The prevalence of caries-free pit and fissures did not show differences after six (p=0.77; I2= 0%) or 12 months (p=0.60; I2= 0%) and the quality of the evidence was judged as low; after 24 months, other sealant materials performed better (p=0.30; I2=7%) and the quality as moderate. There were no differences in the retention rates of the different materials after six-month (p<0.0001; I2= 96%), 12-month follow-up (p<0.0001; I2= 99%) and 24 months (p<0.00001; I2= 100%); the quality of the evidence was considered very low. Conclusion: Glass carbomer sealants have a similar performance to other sealant materials when retention is considered. For the development of new carious lesions, other sealant materials performed better over time. However, new clinical trials are needed to corroborate these findings since it still lacks quality to the evidence raised.