Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S
Division of Public Oral Health, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Rd., Parktown/Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2010 Feb;11(1):18-25. doi: 10.1007/BF03262705.
To appraise quantitatively current evidence regarding the caries-preventing effect of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RM-GIC) fissure sealants in comparison to that of resin-based fissure sealants.
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
8 Anglophone databases and 2 Lusophone databases were searched until 15 April 2009, using a pre-determined search strategy. Clinical trials were considered for inclusion if their titles/abstracts were relevant to the topic, published in English, Portuguese or Spanish and had a two-arm longitudinal study design. The outcome measure of the caries-preventive effect was caries absence on sealed teeth. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the accepted articles in order to complete a 2x2 table for meta-analysis. The unit of interest was the tooth, and the number of caries-free teeth (n) at the end of each time interval (6, 12 and 24 months) was compared against the total number of evaluated teeth (N).
Datasets were assessed for their clinical and methodological heterogeneity, following Cochrane guidelines, and only homogeneous datasets were combined for meta-analysis, using a random effects model (RevMan 4.2). Differences in the caries-preventive effect were computed on the basis of the combined Relative Risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
Of the 212 articles identified, only 6 trials were included. From these, 19 separate datasets were extracted. For the pooled data, equivalent caries-preventive effects were observed at 6 months (RR= 0.98, 95% CI 0.95- 1.00; p = 0.08); 12 months (RR=1.00, 95% CI 0.96-1.04, p = 0.99) and 24 months (RR=1.01, 95% CI 0.84-1.21, p = 0.91). The 36-month data (not pooled) favoured resin-based sealants (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.97, p = 0.002).
This meta-analysis found no conclusive evidence that either material was superior to the other in preventing dental caries.
定量评估树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀（RM - GIC）窝沟封闭剂与树脂基窝沟封闭剂相比的防龋效果的现有证据。
系统评价与荟萃分析。
采用预先确定的检索策略，检索了8个英语数据库和2个葡萄牙语数据库，检索截至2009年4月15日。如果临床试验的标题/摘要与该主题相关，以英语、葡萄牙语或西班牙语发表，且具有双臂纵向研究设计，则考虑纳入。防龋效果的结局指标是封闭牙上无龋。两名评价者独立从纳入的文章中提取数据，以完成用于荟萃分析的2×2表格。研究对象为牙齿，比较每个时间间隔（6、12和24个月）结束时无龋牙齿数（n）与评估牙齿总数（N）。
按照Cochrane指南评估数据集的临床和方法学异质性，仅将同质数据集合并用于荟萃分析，采用随机效应模型（RevMan 4.2）。基于合并相对危险度（RR）及95%置信区间（CI）计算防龋效果差异。
在检索到的212篇文章中，仅纳入6项试验。从中提取了19个独立数据集。对于汇总数据，在6个月时观察到等效的防龋效果（RR = 0.98，95% CI 0.95 - 1.00；p = 0.08）；12个月时（RR = 1.00，95% CI 0.96 - 1.04，p = 0.99）和24个月时（RR = 1.01，95% CI 0.84 - 1.21，p = 0.91）。36个月的数据（未汇总）显示树脂基封闭剂更具优势（RR 0.93，95% CI 0.88 - 0.97，p = 0.002）。
该荟萃分析未发现确凿证据表明两种材料在预防龋齿方面哪种更具优势。
