Performance of pit and fissure sealants according to tooth characteristics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of this systematic review was to assess the clinical performance of sealants on various teeth in an evidence-based manner. SOURCES: Five databases were searched from inception to February 2017. DATA: Randomized clinical studies on humans. METHODS: After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment according to the Cochrane guidelines, Paule-Mandel random-effects meta-analyses of Relative Risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 16 randomized clinical trials with 2778 patients (male/female 49.1%/50.9%) and an average age of 8.4 years were included. No significant difference in either caries incidence of sealed teeth or sealant retention could be found according to (i) mouth side (right versus left), (ii) jaw (upper versus lower), (iii) and tooth type (1st permanent molar versus 2nd permanent molar/1st permanent molar versus 2nd deciduous molar/1st deciduous molar versus 2nd deciduous molar), based on evidence of very low to low quality. On the other side, compared to 1st permanent molars, sealed premolars were significantly less likely to develop caries (3 trials; RR=0.12; 95% CI=0.03 to 0.44; P=0.001) and less likely to experience loss of the sealant (5 trials; RR=0.33; 95% CI=0.20 to 0.54; P=0.001), both based on low to moderate quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of pit and fissure sealants does not seem to be negatively affected by mouth side, jaw, and tooth type, apart from the exception of a favorable retention on premolars. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Based on existing evidence, pit and fissure sealants can be effectively applied on any deciduous or permanent posterior teeth without adverse effects on their clinical performance.

Publication bias & small-study effects in pediatric dentistry meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the presence and extent of publication bias and small-study effects in meta-analyses (MAs) investigating pediatric dentistry-related subjects. METHODS: Following a literature search, 46 MAs including 882 studies were analyzed qualitatively. Of these, 39 provided enough data to be re-analyzed. Publication bias was assessed with the following methods: contour-enhanced funnel plots, Begg and Mazumdar's rank correlation and Egger's linear regression tests, Rosenthal's failsafe N, and Duval and Tweedie's "trim and fill" procedure. RESULTS: Only a few MAs adequately assessed the existence and effect of publication bias. Inspection of the funnel plots indicated asymmetry, which was confirmed by Begg-Mazumdar's test in 18% and by Egger's test in 33% of the MAs. According to Rosenthal's criterion, 80% of the MAs were robust, while adjusted effects with unpublished studies differed from little to great from the unadjusted ones. Pooling of the Egger's intercepts indicated that evidence of asymmetry was found in the pediatric dental literature, which was accentuated in dental journals and in diagnostic MAs. Since indications of small-study effects and publication bias in pediatric dentistry were found, the influence of small or missing trials on estimated treatment effects should be routinely assessed in future MAs.