Deery C, Pitts N B
Department of Dental Health, University of Dundee, Dental School.
Community Dent Health. 1992 Dec;9(4):385-90.
The aim of this study was to assess whether preventive fissure sealants could be differentiated from sealant restorations. The problem of being unable to differentiate between these two tooth states has implications for practitioners and epidemiologists (Davies, 1990). One hundred and seventeen permanent molar teeth, all sealed with a clear sealant, were examined under two types of conditions. These were the Daray 'Versatile light'; mirror, wet teeth, and the Daray 'Operating light 2'; mirror, dry teeth. The subjects' records were subsequently consulted to provide the validating criteria. The results suggest that in a dental hospital environment, when a clear sealant material is in place, it is possible to differentiate between preventive fissure sealants and sealant restorations. It would seem, however, that the 'sealant-alone' variety of sealant restoration was the one most often mistaken for a preventive fissure sealant. The different examination conditions did not markedly affect the examiners' ability to differentiate between the two tooth stage.
本研究的目的是评估预防性窝沟封闭剂与封闭修复体是否能够区分开来。无法区分这两种牙齿状态的问题对从业者和流行病学家都有影响(戴维斯,1990年)。117颗均用透明封闭剂封闭的恒牙在两种条件下接受检查。这两种条件分别是戴瑞“通用光”;镜子,湿润牙齿,以及戴瑞“手术灯2”;镜子,干燥牙齿。随后查阅受试者的记录以提供验证标准。结果表明,在牙科医院环境中,当使用透明封闭剂材料时,有可能区分预防性窝沟封闭剂和封闭修复体。然而,似乎“单纯封闭剂”类型的封闭修复体是最常被误认为预防性窝沟封闭剂的。不同的检查条件并未显著影响检查者区分这两种牙齿状态的能力。