Constic流体树脂应用于窝沟封闭的临床评价
|
摘要
目的通过与3M ESPE窝沟封闭剂的比较,评价Constic流体树脂釉质粘接性能和封闭性能。方法选择2014年苏州市沧浪实验小学二年级小学生118人(牙齿数236颗)为树脂组和草桥实验小学二年级小学生106人(牙齿数210颗)为封闭剂组。树脂组采用Constic流体树脂进行封闭,封闭剂组采用3M ESPE进行封闭。比较两组0.5、2.0年后的封闭剂脱落发生率和2.0年后第一磨牙龋病发生率。结果 0.5年后,封闭剂组封闭剂脱落发生率[5.2%(11/210)]高于树脂组[1.7%(4/236)],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);2.0年后,封闭剂组封闭剂脱落发生率[11.4%(24/210)]与树脂组[12.0%(28/234)]比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2.0年后,树脂组龋病发生率[2.1%(5/234)]与封闭剂组[2.4%(5/210)]比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 Constic流体树脂的粘接性能、封闭性能与专用封闭剂类似,但操作程序简便,可以作为窝沟封闭剂推广使用。
Objective To evaluate the bond and sealing property of Constic flow resin by comparing with 3 M ESPE pit and fissure sealant. Methods A total of 118(236 teeth) second-grade students of Canglang Experimental Primary School in2014 were selected as resin group,106(210 teeth)second-grade students of Grass Bridge Experimental Primary School in 2014 were selected as sealing agent group. The resin group used Constic flow resin pit and fissure sealing,sealing agent group used 3 M ESPE pit and fissure sealant. The loss rates of two sealing agent were compared after 0.5,2.0 years,and the incidence of tooth decay in first molar were compared after 2.0 years. Results After 0.5 years,the loss rate of sealing agent in sealing agent group[5.2%(11/210)] was higher than that in resin group[1.7%(4/236)],the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);After 2.0 years,the loss rate of sealing agent in sealing agent group[11.4%(24/210)] compared with that in resin group[12.0%(28/234)],the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05). After 2.0 years,the incidence of tooth decay in first molar in resin group[2.1%(5/234)]compared with that in sealing agent group [2.4%(5/210)],the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).Conclusion The adhesion property and sealing capability of are similar to those of dedicated sealing agent,but its operation procedure is simple,which is worth using widely as pit and fissure sealant.
Objective To evaluate the bond and sealing property of Constic flow resin by comparing with 3 M ESPE pit and fissure sealant. Methods A total of 118(236 teeth) second-grade students of Canglang Experimental Primary School in2014 were selected as resin group,106(210 teeth)second-grade students of Grass Bridge Experimental Primary School in 2014 were selected as sealing agent group. The resin group used Constic flow resin pit and fissure sealing,sealing agent group used 3 M ESPE pit and fissure sealant. The loss rates of two sealing agent were compared after 0.5,2.0 years,and the incidence of tooth decay in first molar were compared after 2.0 years. Results After 0.5 years,the loss rate of sealing agent in sealing agent group[5.2%(11/210)] was higher than that in resin group[1.7%(4/236)],the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);After 2.0 years,the loss rate of sealing agent in sealing agent group[11.4%(24/210)] compared with that in resin group[12.0%(28/234)],the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05). After 2.0 years,the incidence of tooth decay in first molar in resin group[2.1%(5/234)]compared with that in sealing agent group [2.4%(5/210)],the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).Conclusion The adhesion property and sealing capability of are similar to those of dedicated sealing agent,but its operation procedure is simple,which is worth using widely as pit and fissure sealant.
引文
[1]冯敏杰,蔡鸿丹.第一恒磨牙龋病1322名小学生调查分析[J].现代医药卫生,2013,29(2):178-179.
[2]Chadwick B.Flowable restorative system has a higher retention rate than conventional resin sealant on primary teeth[J].Evid Based Dent,2005,6(4):89.
[3]Pardi V,Pereira AC,Ambrosano GM,et al.Clinical evaluation of three different materials used as pit and fissure sealant:24-months results[J].J Clin Pediatr Dent,2005,29(2):133-137.
[4]储冰峰,刘洪臣,周继林,等.光固化窝沟封闭剂五年临床效果[J].中华口腔医学杂志,1999,34(2):115.
[5]World Health Organization.Oral health surveys basic methods[M].4th ed.Geneva:WHO,1997:1-21.
[6]徐永祥,韩建民,林红.自黏性流动树脂的性能研究[J].北京大学学报:医学版,2012,44(2):303-306.
[7]曹慧珍,束陈斌,汪隼,等.光固化封闭剂与光固化流体树脂窝沟封闭临床效果评价[J].上海口腔医学,2011,20(5):545-546.
[8]日孜瓦古力·阿木提,刘菁彧,玛依热,等.457例维吾尔族儿童第一恒磨牙窝沟封闭2年疗效分析[J].上海口腔医学,2014,23(2):201-203.
[9]韩静,于洪波,焦菲菲.光固化流体树脂窝沟封闭防龋效果评价[J].口腔医学,2016,36(2):132-134.
[10]王跃岩,高朗.两种窝沟封闭剂防治儿童龋病的疗效比较[J].中国现代医生,2013,51(25):138-139.
[11]张敏,彭杰,谢霓,等.窝沟封闭术预防儿童龋病效果的Meta分析[J].口腔医学研究,2014,30(9):891-894.
[12]Yazici AR,Agarwal I,Campillo-Funollet M,et al.Effect of laser preparation on bond strength of a self-adhesive flowable resin[J].Lasers Med Sci,2013,28(1):343-347.
[13]吴伟华,刘梅,章非敏.Constic流体树脂黏结性能评价[J].口腔医学,2017,37(7):659-660.
[14]齐小秋.第三次全国口腔健康流行病学调查报告[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2008:3.
[2]Chadwick B.Flowable restorative system has a higher retention rate than conventional resin sealant on primary teeth[J].Evid Based Dent,2005,6(4):89.
[3]Pardi V,Pereira AC,Ambrosano GM,et al.Clinical evaluation of three different materials used as pit and fissure sealant:24-months results[J].J Clin Pediatr Dent,2005,29(2):133-137.
[4]储冰峰,刘洪臣,周继林,等.光固化窝沟封闭剂五年临床效果[J].中华口腔医学杂志,1999,34(2):115.
[5]World Health Organization.Oral health surveys basic methods[M].4th ed.Geneva:WHO,1997:1-21.
[6]徐永祥,韩建民,林红.自黏性流动树脂的性能研究[J].北京大学学报:医学版,2012,44(2):303-306.
[7]曹慧珍,束陈斌,汪隼,等.光固化封闭剂与光固化流体树脂窝沟封闭临床效果评价[J].上海口腔医学,2011,20(5):545-546.
[8]日孜瓦古力·阿木提,刘菁彧,玛依热,等.457例维吾尔族儿童第一恒磨牙窝沟封闭2年疗效分析[J].上海口腔医学,2014,23(2):201-203.
[9]韩静,于洪波,焦菲菲.光固化流体树脂窝沟封闭防龋效果评价[J].口腔医学,2016,36(2):132-134.
[10]王跃岩,高朗.两种窝沟封闭剂防治儿童龋病的疗效比较[J].中国现代医生,2013,51(25):138-139.
[11]张敏,彭杰,谢霓,等.窝沟封闭术预防儿童龋病效果的Meta分析[J].口腔医学研究,2014,30(9):891-894.
[12]Yazici AR,Agarwal I,Campillo-Funollet M,et al.Effect of laser preparation on bond strength of a self-adhesive flowable resin[J].Lasers Med Sci,2013,28(1):343-347.
[13]吴伟华,刘梅,章非敏.Constic流体树脂黏结性能评价[J].口腔医学,2017,37(7):659-660.
[14]齐小秋.第三次全国口腔健康流行病学调查报告[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2008:3.