两种不同窝沟封闭剂对部分萌出恒磨牙的临床封闭效果比较

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (1)

全文: PDF (1362 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的：比较玻璃离子窝沟封闭剂Fuji Ⅶ和树脂窝沟封闭剂Concise对部分萌出恒磨牙的窝沟封闭效果。方法：选取符合纳入标准的儿童50例，自身半口对照设计，对部分萌出的双侧下颌第一恒磨牙分别用玻璃离子窝沟封闭剂Fuji Ⅶ（Fuji Ⅶ组）和树脂窝沟封闭剂Concise（Concise组）进行窝沟封闭。于3、6、12个月后复查比较2组牙封闭剂保留情况和患龋情况。结果：47例受试者，共94颗牙齿完成窝沟封闭并随访12个月。结果显示Fuji Ⅶ组和Concise组在3、6、12个月时封闭剂保留情况差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；国际龋病检测及评估系II（ICDAS II）计分Fuji Ⅶ组低于Concise组，患龋牙84.8%为釉质早期龋。结论：对部分萌出的下颌恒磨牙，玻璃离子窝沟封闭剂Fuji Ⅶ与树脂型封闭剂相比保留率相似，但防龋效果较好。

	服务
	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	潘央央
	周海燕
	梅丽琴
	李桥

关键词 ：窝沟封闭, 龋齿, 国际龋病检测及评估系II, 玻璃离子

Abstract：Objective: To compare the retention and caries preventive effects of two fissure sealants (glass ionomer based GC Fuji VII and resin based 3M Concise) on the partially erupted permanent first molars. Methods: The bilateral partially erupted permanent first molar of 50 children were sealed by two different fissure sealants with a split-mouth design. Clinical evalution of the sealants was carried out to record retention and presence of caries (ICDAS II scores) at 3, 6 and 12 months after placement. The P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test). Results: The recall rate was 94% at 12 months. No satistically significant difference was found in retention rates between the two groups (P>0.05). However, the Fuji VII group showed lower ICDAS II scores than Concise group. Conclusion: GC Fuji VII may be a better choice for pit and fissure caries preventing of partially erupted molars.

Key words： pit and dissure sealant caries international caries detection and assessment system II glass ionomer

收稿日期: 2015-04-08

基金资助:温州市科技局公益性科技计划项目（Y20150276，Y20140559）。

通讯作者: 梅丽琴，副主任医师，Email：1145336642@qq.com。

作者简介: 潘央央（1986-），女，浙江永嘉人，住院医师，硕士。

链接本文:

https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/CN/ 或 https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/CN/Y2016/V46/I2/122

[1] 陈小贤, 刘星纲. 玻璃离子窝沟封闭剂2年临床防龋效果观察[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2012, 44(1): 157-159.
[2] SHAW L. Modern thoughts on fissure sealants[J]. Dent Update, 2000, 27(8): 370-374.
[3] 沈红, 胡德渝, 谭晨姗, 等. 树脂与玻璃离子对幼儿窝沟封闭效果临床评价[J]. 实用口腔医学杂志, 2011, 27(2): 226-230.
[4] International Caries Detection and Assessment System (IC-DAS) Coordinating Committee. Rationale and evidence for the international caries detection and assessment system(ICDAS II)[R]. Scotland: Dental Health Services Research Unit, 2005.
[5] 常蕊, 吴丽更, 穆颖, 等. ICDAS-II与WHO两种龋病评估系统在儿童龋病检查中的应用比较[J]. 牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志, 2011, 21(10): 555-559.
[6] 尹伟, 胡德渝. 玻璃离子窝沟封闭剂的应用研究[J]. 牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志, 2004, 14(11): 651-654.
[7] NINAWE N, ULLAL N A, KHANDELWAL V. A 1-year clinical evaluation of fissure sealants on permanent first molars[J]. Contemp Clin Dent, 2012, 3(1): 54-59.
[8] GULER C, YILNMAZ Y. A two-year clinical evaluation of glass ionomer and ormocer based fissure sealants[J]. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 2013, 37(3): 263-267.
[9] 施乐, 冯希平, 吕进. 高分子树脂与玻璃离子在儿童恒磨牙窝沟封闭中的效果比较[J]. 中国临床医学, 2012, 19(3): 308-309.
[10] ANTONSON S A, WANUCK J, ANTONSON D E. Surface protection for newly erupting first molars[J]. Compend Contin Educ Dent, 2006, 27(1): 46-52.
[11] TOPALOGLU AK A, RIZA ALPOZ A. Effect of saliva contamination on microleakage of three different pit and fissure sealants[J]. Eur J Paediatr Dent, 2010, 11(2): 93-96.
[12] MICKENAUTSCH S, YENGOPAL V. Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: An update of systematic review evidence[J]. BMC Res Notes, 2011, 4: 22.
[13] SETH S.Glass ionomer cement and resin-based fissure sealants are equally effective in caries prevention[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2011, 142(5): 551-552.
[14] BEIRUTI N, FRENCKEN J E, VAN’T HOF M A, et al. Caries preventive effect of a one-time application of composite resin and glass ionomer sealants after 5 years[J]. Caries Res, 2006, 40(1): 52-59.
[15] 王金华, 邓锋, 林居红. 4种不同含氟窝沟封闭剂氟离子释放和回收的体外研究[J]. 第三军医大学学报, 2011, 33(13):1382-1384.
[16] KUMARAN P. Clinical evaluation of the retention of different pit and fissure sealants: a 1-year study[J]. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent, 2013, 6(3): 183-187.