Search result: Only one clinical study was found.
Clinical outcomes: The results indicate no difference in the caries preventive effect between both materials as fissure sealants in permanent teeth. The retention rate of RM-GIC in pits and fissures was higher than for conventional GIC.
State of evidence and recommendations: The quality of the existing evidence requires further assessment.
[‘Preliminary Systematic Literature Searches’ are based on SYSTEM’s periodic systematic searches of the dental literature and provide first overviews over existing clinical evidence but are limited in the number of databases searched, as well as the assessment of precision and internal validity of results and thus do not replace the need for a full systematic review report to the topic]
Mickenautsch, S. (2019). GIC versus RM-GIC as fissure sealant [October 20, 2015]. Afribary. Retrieved from https://track.afribary.com/works/gic-versus-rm-gic-as-fissure-sealant-october-20-2015
Mickenautsch, Steffen "GIC versus RM-GIC as fissure sealant [October 20, 2015]" Afribary. Afribary, 26 May. 2019, https://track.afribary.com/works/gic-versus-rm-gic-as-fissure-sealant-october-20-2015. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
Mickenautsch, Steffen . "GIC versus RM-GIC as fissure sealant [October 20, 2015]". Afribary, Afribary, 26 May. 2019. Web. 20 Nov. 2024. < https://track.afribary.com/works/gic-versus-rm-gic-as-fissure-sealant-october-20-2015 >.
Mickenautsch, Steffen . "GIC versus RM-GIC as fissure sealant [October 20, 2015]" Afribary (2019). Accessed November 20, 2024. https://track.afribary.com/works/gic-versus-rm-gic-as-fissure-sealant-october-20-2015