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.
[‘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]
Steffen, M (2019). GIC versus RM-GIC as fissure sealant [October 16, 2017]. Afribary.com: Retrieved March 05, 2021, from https://afribary.com/works/gic-versus-rm-gic-as-fissure-sealant-october-16-2017
Mickenautsch, Steffen. "GIC versus RM-GIC as fissure sealant [October 16, 2017]" Afribary.com. Afribary.com, 28 May. 2019, https://afribary.com/works/gic-versus-rm-gic-as-fissure-sealant-october-16-2017 . Accessed 05 Mar. 2021.
Mickenautsch, Steffen. "GIC versus RM-GIC as fissure sealant [October 16, 2017]". Afribary.com, Afribary.com, 28 May. 2019. Web. 05 Mar. 2021. < https://afribary.com/works/gic-versus-rm-gic-as-fissure-sealant-october-16-2017 >.
Mickenautsch, Steffen. "GIC versus RM-GIC as fissure sealant [October 16, 2017]" Afribary.com (2019). Accessed March 05, 2021. https://afribary.com/works/gic-versus-rm-gic-as-fissure-sealant-october-16-2017