不同粘接系统下应用纳米复合树脂窝沟封闭剂的临床评估：24 个月结果。

Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled fissure sealant placed with different adhesive systems: 24-month results.

机构信息

Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

Oper Dent. 2009 Nov-Dec;34(6):642-7. doi: 10.2341/08-097-C.

DOI:10.2341/08-097-C

PMID:19953772

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This clinical study compared the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 24 months.

METHODS

Two-hundred and forty-four sealants were placed on the permanent premolars and molars of 16 subjects who had no restorations or sealants present on the fissures and no detectable caries. The sealants were placed with either SoloBond M two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or FuturaBond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists, using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Clinical evaluations were done at baseline and at 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-month recalls. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants. Evaluation of the sealants on every follow-up visit involved visual examination with the aid of a dental explorer and an intra-oral mirror. Each sealant was evaluated with the following criteria: 1 = completely retained; 2 = partial loss; 3 = total loss. The Pearson Chi-square test was used to evaluate differences in the retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period.

RESULTS

For the 12-month recalls, complete retention rates of 89.3% for the SoloBond M group and 20.5% for the FuturaBond NR group were observed. Sixteen of the 244 restorations were unavailable after 12 months. At 24 months, a total loss of 9 sealants in the SoloBond M group and 84 in the FuturaBond NR group were observed, resulting in retention rates of 81.6% and 15.8%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in retention rates between the SoloBond M and FuturaBond NR groups in all periods of evaluation (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference between the retention rates for premolars and molars was found at each evaluation period (p > 0.05). There was no new caries formation throughout the 24-month recall period.

CONCLUSION

Fissure sealants placed with etch-and-rinse adhesive showed better retention rates than those placed with self-etch adhesive.

摘要

目的

本临床研究比较了在 24 个月的时间内，使用酸蚀冲洗型粘结剂（SoloBond M）和自酸蚀粘结剂（FuturaBond NR）分别对纳米复合窝沟封闭剂的保留率。

方法

将 244 个窝沟封闭剂分别放置在 16 名受试者的恒牙磨牙和前磨牙上，这些受试者的窝沟中没有修复体或封闭剂，且无明显龋坏。由 4 位经过校准的牙医使用随机数表，分别使用 SoloBond M 两步酸蚀冲洗型粘结剂或 FuturaBond NR 一步自酸蚀粘结剂进行封闭剂的放置。完成粘结剂应用后，使用纳米复合封闭剂 Grandio Seal 进行涂抹并光照固化。在基线、1、3、6、12、18 和 24 个月的随访中进行临床评估。另外 2 位经过校准的检查者对封闭剂进行独立评估，他们并不知道使用了哪种粘结剂。在每次随访检查中，使用牙探针和口腔内窥镜辅助进行视觉检查。每个封闭剂使用以下标准进行评估：1 = 完全保留；2 = 部分损失；3 = 完全损失。使用 Pearson Chi-square 检验评估在每个评估期间使用不同粘结剂时封闭剂的保留率差异。

结果

在 12 个月的随访中，SoloBond M 组的完全保留率为 89.3%，而 FuturaBond NR 组为 20.5%。在 12 个月时，有 16 个修复体不可用。在 24 个月时，SoloBond M 组有 9 个封闭剂完全损失，FuturaBond NR 组有 84 个封闭剂完全损失，保留率分别为 81.6%和 15.8%。在所有评估期间，SoloBond M 组和 FuturaBond NR 组之间的保留率均存在统计学显著差异（p < 0.05）。在每个评估期间，前磨牙和磨牙的保留率之间无统计学显著差异（p > 0.05）。在整个 24 个月的随访期间没有新的龋坏形成。