Gift H C, Frew R, Hefferren J J
ASDC J Dent Child. 1975 Nov-Dec;42(6):460-6.
The results indicate that attitudes toward and use of sealants are generally low. There are, however, some dentists who use sealants proportionately more than other dentists, these being less recent graduates, dentists who practice in the northeast, and those dentists who are oriented generally more toward preventive procedures. The reasons selected by dentists for not using pit-and-fissure sealants were surprising. Despite considerable published evidence to the contrary and the provisional acceptance of two by the American Dental Association, Council on Dental Materials and Devices, most dentists are not yet convinced of the effectiveness of the procedure in preventing caries. In addition, many dentists were concerned that the material did not last long in the mouth, although high retention rates for periods in excess of one to three years had been reported. Also, a great concern for the possible sealing in of decay seems unsubstantiated by either clinical experience or reports from studies designed to monitor the activity of bacteria sealed in pits and fissures of teeth. Conversely, dentists infrequently selected either the cost of equipment and material or the time required for the procedure as reasons for not using pit-and-fissure sealants. The demanding technical requirements for proper application of the sealant, however, especially the avoidance of any moisture contamination, does require skilled personnel and substantial chair time. These factors are important considerations in the determination of the cost-effectiveness of this procedure in comparison to other preventive procedures for pit-and-fissure caries. These inconsistencies indicate a problem in the transmission of knowledge regarding sealants. Increased use of sealants, then, seems to be dependent on improving communication regarding their function and value to the dental profession. Data on the effectiveness of sealants over periods of three or more years have recently been reported and additional evaluations of this procedure are being reported. It would be expected that reports published since this research during the winter of 1974 will have an effect on both attitudes toward and use of sealants.
结果表明,人们对窝沟封闭剂的态度和使用频率普遍较低。然而,有一些牙医使用窝沟封闭剂的比例比其他牙医更高,这些牙医较少是刚毕业的,多在东北部执业,并且总体上更倾向于预防性治疗程序。牙医们不使用窝沟封闭剂的原因令人惊讶。尽管有大量已发表的证据表明情况并非如此,并且美国牙科协会牙科材料与器械委员会已临时认可了两种窝沟封闭剂,但大多数牙医仍不相信该治疗程序在预防龋齿方面的有效性。此外,许多牙医担心这种材料在口腔中不能持久,尽管有报告称其保留率在一至三年以上的时间段内很高。而且,对于可能将龋齿封闭在其中的担忧,似乎无论是临床经验还是旨在监测封闭在牙齿窝沟中的细菌活性的研究报告都无法证实。相反,牙医很少将设备和材料成本或治疗程序所需时间作为不使用窝沟封闭剂的原因。然而,但窝沟封闭剂正确应用所需的严格技术要求,尤其是避免任何水分污染,确实需要技术熟练的人员和大量的就诊时间。与其他预防窝沟龋的治疗程序相比,这些因素是确定该治疗程序成本效益时的重要考虑因素。这些不一致表明在窝沟封闭剂知识传播方面存在问题。那么,窝沟封闭剂使用的增加似乎取决于改善关于其功能和对牙科行业价值的沟通。最近有关于窝沟封闭剂三年或更长时间有效性的数据报告,并且对该治疗程序的其他评估也在进行中。预计自1974年冬季这项研究以来发表的报告会对人们对窝沟封闭剂的态度和使用产生影响。