Yengopal Veerasamy, Mickenautsch Steffen, Bezerra Ana C, Leal Soraya C
Division of Public Oral Health, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, Houghton, South Africa.
J Oral Sci. 2009 Sep;51(3):373-82. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.51.373.
The purpose of this quantitative systematic review was to appraise the evidence on the caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer cement (GIC) in relation to resin-based fissure sealants. Nine English and two Portuguese databases were searched (15 January 2008). Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews were considered for inclusion. Trial exclusion criteria were: drop-out rates > 33%; no randomization; baseline differences in groups not statistically adjusted; and no clinically important outcomes were presented. Two authors reviewed the articles independently. The outcome measure for the caries preventive effect was caries absence on sealed teeth. Of the 112 identified articles, 25 were selected for review. Of these, 14 were excluded and 11 accepted (8 trials; 3 systematic reviews). The accepted reviews provided no evidence of superiority of either sealant material. Six trials were included for meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 0.96, 95% CI 0.62-1.49, indicating no difference in the caries-preventive effect of GIC and resin-based fissure sealant material. This systematic review with meta-analysis found no evidence that either material was superior to the other in the prevention of dental caries. Thus, both materials appear equally suitable for clinical application as a fissure sealant material.
本定量系统评价旨在评估玻璃离子水门汀(GIC)相对于树脂基窝沟封闭剂的防龋效果证据。检索了9个英文数据库和2个葡萄牙语数据库(2008年1月15日)。纳入随机临床试验和系统评价。试验排除标准为:失访率>33%;未随机分组;组间基线差异未进行统计学调整;未呈现具有临床意义的结果。两位作者独立审阅文章。防龋效果的结局指标为封闭牙齿无龋。在检索到的112篇文章中,25篇被选作综述。其中,14篇被排除,11篇被纳入(8项试验;3篇系统评价)。纳入的综述未提供任何一种封闭剂材料更具优势的证据。6项试验被纳入荟萃分析。合并比值比为0.96,95%可信区间为0.62 - 1.49,表明GIC和树脂基窝沟封闭剂材料的防龋效果无差异。这项包含荟萃分析的系统评价未发现任何一种材料在预防龋齿方面优于另一种材料的证据。因此,两种材料作为窝沟封闭剂材料似乎同样适用于临床应用。