Corona S A M, Borsatto M C, Garcia L, Ramos R P, Palma-Dibb R G
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Riberao Preto Dental School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo State, Brazil.
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2005 Jan;15(1):44-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00605.x.
This clinical trial evaluated the retention rate of a flowable restorative system (Bond 1 + Flow-It!) used as a pit-and-fissure sealant compared with a conventional filled resin sealant (Fluroshield) over a 1-year period.
Using a half-mouth design, 160 sealants (80 in primary and 80 in permanent teeth) were placed on sound first/second primary molars and first permanent molars of 40 children aged between 4 and 7 years. For both primary and permanent dentitions, half the teeth (n = 40) were sealed with Fluroshield and half (n = 40) with Bond 1 + Flow-It! Teeth were evaluated at baseline, 6- and 12-month intervals.
For both materials, there was no total loss of sealants placed on either the primary or permanent molars over 1 year. From Fluroshield sealants placed on primary teeth, 33 were completely intact after 6 months and 31 after 1 year. From those placed on permanent molars, no loss of material was observed after 6 months, while partial loss was noticed on 5% of teeth at 1-year recall. For Flow-It! resin applied on primary molars, partial loss of material was observed in only 1 sealant after 6 months and in 2 sealants after 1 year. On permanent teeth, 100% retention rate was observed over a 1-year follow up. There was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.01) between the sealing materials on primary but not permanent teeth, and, overall, Flow-It! sealants presented a higher retention rate at both 6-month and 1-year evaluations. Significant differences (P < 0.01) between baseline and the other evaluation periods were also observed.
It may be concluded that the flowable restorative system yielded optimal retention on both primary and permanent molars. Its retention rate was significantly higher than that of the conventional pit-and-fissure sealant on primary teeth.
本临床试验评估了一种可流动修复系统(Bond 1 + Flow-It!)作为窝沟封闭剂与传统填充树脂封闭剂(Fluroshield)相比在1年期间的保留率。
采用半口设计,在40名4至7岁儿童的健康第一/第二乳磨牙和第一恒磨牙上放置160颗封闭剂(乳牙80颗,恒牙80颗)。对于乳牙和恒牙列,一半的牙齿(n = 40)用Fluroshield封闭,另一半(n = 40)用Bond 1 + Flow-It!封闭。在基线、6个月和12个月间隔时对牙齿进行评估。
对于两种材料,在1年期间,乳牙或恒牙上放置的封闭剂均未完全脱落。在乳牙上放置的Fluroshield封闭剂中,6个月后33颗完全完好,1年后31颗完全完好。在恒牙上放置的封闭剂中,6个月后未观察到材料损失,而在1年回访时,5%的牙齿出现部分损失。对于Flow-It!树脂应用于乳磨牙,6个月后仅1颗封闭剂观察到材料部分损失,1年后2颗封闭剂观察到材料部分损失。在恒牙上,1年随访期间观察到100%的保留率。乳牙的封闭材料之间存在统计学显著差异(P < 0.01),恒牙则不存在,总体而言,Flow-It!封闭剂在6个月和1年评估时均呈现较高的保留率。在基线和其他评估期之间也观察到显著差异(P < 0.01)。
可以得出结论,可流动修复系统在乳牙和恒牙上均产生了最佳保留率。其保留率显著高于乳牙上的传统窝沟封闭剂。