不同牙面处理方法对第一恒磨牙窝沟封闭脱落率的影响
|
摘要
目的:评价不同牙面处理方法对第一恒磨牙窝沟封闭剂脱落率的影响。方法:选择我市参加窝沟封闭公益项目的180名1～2年级、 7～9岁的学龄儿童共计720个第一恒磨牙,随机分为2组(n=90),分别采用橡皮杯、小毛刷清洁牙面,用Clinpro、Fissurit F、Helioseal F 3种含氟封闭剂进行窝沟封闭(n=30)。每个第一恒磨牙用一种窝沟封闭剂进行封闭;分别于窝沟封闭后3、 6个月复查封闭剂脱落情况,并比较各组封闭剂脱落率。结果:在清洁方法相同时,窝沟封闭术后3个月, 3种封闭剂脱落率相比无统计学差异(P>0.05);术后6个月,Helioseal F脱落率均低于Fissurit F和Clinpro(P<0.05)。在封闭剂相同时,术后3、 6个月封闭剂脱落率均为刷组低于杯组(P<0.05)。结论:在第一恒磨牙窝沟封闭过程中使用小毛刷清洁牙面比橡皮杯更有优势;Helioseal F封闭剂可有效降低第一恒磨牙窝沟封闭脱落率。
Objective: To observe the effect of different tooth surface treatment methods on the rate of pit and fissure sealant expulsion in first permanent molars. Methods: 180 school children aged 7 to 9 years old participated in a free pit and fissure sealing public welfare project. The children were randomly divided into rubber cup group(n=90) and brush group(n=90) for tooth cleaning. The 720 first permanent molars in both groups were sealed with Clinpro, Fissurit F and Helioseal F respectively(n=30). The sealant expulsion was reviewed and the sealant expulsion rate was compared 3 and 6 months after treatment. Results: When the cleaning method was the same, 3 months after treatment, there was no significant difference among the 3 sealants(P>0.05), 6 months after treatment, the expulsion rate of Helioseal F was lower than that of Fissurit F and Clinpro(P<0.05). When the sealant was the same, the expulsion rate in the brush group was lower than that in the rubber cup group(P<0.05). When the sealant was the same, the expulsion rate of the sealant in the brush group was lower than that of the sealant in the rubber cup group(P<0.05). 3 and 3 months after treatment. Conclusion: The use of small brush to clean the tooth surface is more effective than rubber cup in the process of the first permanent molar pit and fissure sealing. The sealant of Helioseal F can reduce the expulsion rate of the first permanent molar pit and fissure sealant.
Objective: To observe the effect of different tooth surface treatment methods on the rate of pit and fissure sealant expulsion in first permanent molars. Methods: 180 school children aged 7 to 9 years old participated in a free pit and fissure sealing public welfare project. The children were randomly divided into rubber cup group(n=90) and brush group(n=90) for tooth cleaning. The 720 first permanent molars in both groups were sealed with Clinpro, Fissurit F and Helioseal F respectively(n=30). The sealant expulsion was reviewed and the sealant expulsion rate was compared 3 and 6 months after treatment. Results: When the cleaning method was the same, 3 months after treatment, there was no significant difference among the 3 sealants(P>0.05), 6 months after treatment, the expulsion rate of Helioseal F was lower than that of Fissurit F and Clinpro(P<0.05). When the sealant was the same, the expulsion rate in the brush group was lower than that in the rubber cup group(P<0.05). When the sealant was the same, the expulsion rate of the sealant in the brush group was lower than that of the sealant in the rubber cup group(P<0.05). 3 and 3 months after treatment. Conclusion: The use of small brush to clean the tooth surface is more effective than rubber cup in the process of the first permanent molar pit and fissure sealing. The sealant of Helioseal F can reduce the expulsion rate of the first permanent molar pit and fissure sealant.
引文
[1] Asefi S,Eskandarion S,Hamidiaval S.Fissure sealant materials:Wear resistance of flowable composite resins[J].Dent Res Dent C1in Dent Prospect,2016,10(3):194-199.
[2] Tikhonova S.Sealing pits and fissures of permanent molars in children and adolescents is effective in controlling dental caries [J].J Am Dent Asso,2015,146(6):409-411.
[3] 高娟,张辉.窝沟封闭术与氟保护漆联合用于预防儿童龋齿中的疗效评价[J].河北医药,2016,38(11):1658-1660.
[4] Bhushan U,Goswami M.Evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealants placed with and without air abrasion pretreatment in 6- 8year old children- an in vivo study[J].J Clin Exp Dent,2017,9(2):211-217.
[5] Dorantes C,Childers NK,Makhija SK,et al.Assessment of retention rates clinical benefits of a community sealant program [J].Pediatr Dent,2005,27(3):212-216.
[6] Veiga NJ,Pereira CM,Ferreira PC,et al.Prevalence of dental caries and fissure sealant in a portuguese sample of adolescents [J].PLoS One,2015,10(3):e0121299.
[7] Beiruti N,Frencken JE,van't Hof MA,et al.Caries- preventive effect of resin- based and glass ionomer sealants over time:A systematic review [J].Community Dent Oral Epidemiol,2006,34(6):403-409.
[8] 代微微,朱颐馨,刘英群.四种因素对窝沟封闭剂渗透性影响的体外研究[J].临床口腔医学杂志,2011,27(7):389-391.
[9] Li F,Wu D,Ma S,et al.The effect of an antibacterial monomer on the antibacterial activity and mechanical properties of a pit and fissure sealant[J].J Am Dent Assoc,2011,142(2):184 193.
[10] Dionysopoulos D,Sfeikos T.Fluoride release and recharging ability of new dental sealants[J].Eur Arch Paediatr Dent,2016,17(1):45-51.
[11] Reddy VR,Chowdhary N,Mukunda KS,et al.Retention of resin- based filled and unfilled pit and fissure sealants:A comparative clinical study[J].Contemp Clin Dent,2015,6(1):S18-S23.
[12] 张世炜.不同封闭材料和自酸蚀粘接系统用于窝沟封闭的临床研究[D].昆明:昆明医科大学,2016.
[13] Sundfeld D,Machado LS,Franco LM,et al.Clinical/photographic/scanning electron microscopy analysis of pit and fissure sealants after 22 years:A case series[J].Oper Dent,2017,42(1):10-18.
[14] Gawali PN,Chaugule VB,Panse AM.Comparison of microleakage and penetration depth between hydrophilic and ydrophobic sealants in primary second molar[J].Int J C1in Pediatr Dent,2016,9(4):291-295.
[15] Erdemir U,Sancakli HS,Yaman BC,et al.Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant:A 24- month split- mouth,randomized,and controlled study[J].J Dent,2013,42(2):149-157.
[16] Fernandes KS,Chalakkal P,de Ataide Ide N,et al.A comparison between three different pit and fissure sealants with regard to marginal integrity[J].J Conserv Dent,2012,15(2):146-150.
[17] Askarizadeh N,Heshmat H.One- year clinical success of embrace Hydrophilic and Helioseal- F hydrophobic sealants in permanent first molars:A clinical trial[J].J Dent (Tehran),2017,14(2):92-99.
[18] Erdemir U,Sancakli HS,Yaman BC,et al.Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant:A 24- month split- mouth,randomized,and controlled study[J].J Dent,2014,42(2):149-157.
[19] Moslemi M,Erfanparast L,Fekrazad R.The effect of Er,Cr:YSGG laser and air abrasion on shear bond strength of a fissure sealant to enamel[J].J Am Dent Assoc,2010,141(2):2417-2418.
[2] Tikhonova S.Sealing pits and fissures of permanent molars in children and adolescents is effective in controlling dental caries [J].J Am Dent Asso,2015,146(6):409-411.
[3] 高娟,张辉.窝沟封闭术与氟保护漆联合用于预防儿童龋齿中的疗效评价[J].河北医药,2016,38(11):1658-1660.
[4] Bhushan U,Goswami M.Evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealants placed with and without air abrasion pretreatment in 6- 8year old children- an in vivo study[J].J Clin Exp Dent,2017,9(2):211-217.
[5] Dorantes C,Childers NK,Makhija SK,et al.Assessment of retention rates clinical benefits of a community sealant program [J].Pediatr Dent,2005,27(3):212-216.
[6] Veiga NJ,Pereira CM,Ferreira PC,et al.Prevalence of dental caries and fissure sealant in a portuguese sample of adolescents [J].PLoS One,2015,10(3):e0121299.
[7] Beiruti N,Frencken JE,van't Hof MA,et al.Caries- preventive effect of resin- based and glass ionomer sealants over time:A systematic review [J].Community Dent Oral Epidemiol,2006,34(6):403-409.
[8] 代微微,朱颐馨,刘英群.四种因素对窝沟封闭剂渗透性影响的体外研究[J].临床口腔医学杂志,2011,27(7):389-391.
[9] Li F,Wu D,Ma S,et al.The effect of an antibacterial monomer on the antibacterial activity and mechanical properties of a pit and fissure sealant[J].J Am Dent Assoc,2011,142(2):184 193.
[10] Dionysopoulos D,Sfeikos T.Fluoride release and recharging ability of new dental sealants[J].Eur Arch Paediatr Dent,2016,17(1):45-51.
[11] Reddy VR,Chowdhary N,Mukunda KS,et al.Retention of resin- based filled and unfilled pit and fissure sealants:A comparative clinical study[J].Contemp Clin Dent,2015,6(1):S18-S23.
[12] 张世炜.不同封闭材料和自酸蚀粘接系统用于窝沟封闭的临床研究[D].昆明:昆明医科大学,2016.
[13] Sundfeld D,Machado LS,Franco LM,et al.Clinical/photographic/scanning electron microscopy analysis of pit and fissure sealants after 22 years:A case series[J].Oper Dent,2017,42(1):10-18.
[14] Gawali PN,Chaugule VB,Panse AM.Comparison of microleakage and penetration depth between hydrophilic and ydrophobic sealants in primary second molar[J].Int J C1in Pediatr Dent,2016,9(4):291-295.
[15] Erdemir U,Sancakli HS,Yaman BC,et al.Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant:A 24- month split- mouth,randomized,and controlled study[J].J Dent,2013,42(2):149-157.
[16] Fernandes KS,Chalakkal P,de Ataide Ide N,et al.A comparison between three different pit and fissure sealants with regard to marginal integrity[J].J Conserv Dent,2012,15(2):146-150.
[17] Askarizadeh N,Heshmat H.One- year clinical success of embrace Hydrophilic and Helioseal- F hydrophobic sealants in permanent first molars:A clinical trial[J].J Dent (Tehran),2017,14(2):92-99.
[18] Erdemir U,Sancakli HS,Yaman BC,et al.Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant:A 24- month split- mouth,randomized,and controlled study[J].J Dent,2014,42(2):149-157.
[19] Moslemi M,Erfanparast L,Fekrazad R.The effect of Er,Cr:YSGG laser and air abrasion on shear bond strength of a fissure sealant to enamel[J].J Am Dent Assoc,2010,141(2):2417-2418.