3Simonsen RJ. Stallard RE. Sealant-restorations utilizing a diluted filled resin:One year results[J]. Quintessence Int. 1977, 8(6): 77.
4Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D. Assessing the quality of reports ofrandomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary[J]. Control Clinic Trials, 1996,17(1): 1-12.
6Jafarzadeh M, Malekafzali B, Tadayon N, et al. Retention of a FlowableComposite Resin in Comparison to a Conventional Resin-Based Sealant:One-year Follow-up[J].Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of MedicalSciences,2010, 7(1): 1-5.
7Corona SA, Borsatto MC, Gareia L, et al. Randimized, controlled trialcomparing the retention of a flowable restorative systerm with a conventionalresin sealant: one-year follow up[J]. Int J Paediatr Dent,2005,15(1): 44-50.
8Oba AA, Sonmez IS, Ercan E, et al. Comparison of retention rates of fissuresealants using two flowable restoration materials and conventional resin sealant:two-year follow-up[J]. Med Princ Prut, 2012, 21(3): 234-237.
9Rabello T. Research proposal: evaluation of the ART approach in elderlypatients[J]. J Appl Oral Sci,2006,14(spe): 30-33.
10Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports ofmeta-analyses of randomized controlled trials the QUOROM statement Qualityreporting of meta-analyses[J].Lancet,1999,354(9193):1896-1900.
