Baseggio Wagner, Naufel Fabiana Scarparo, Davidoff Denise César de Oliveira, Nahsan Flávia Pardo Salata, Flury Simon, Rodrigues Jonas Almeida
Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2010;8(3):261-8.
This prospective clinical trial compared the retention rate and caries-preventive efficacy of two types of sealant modalities over a 3-year period.
Using a split-mouth randomised design, 1280 sealants were randomly applied on sound permanent second molars of 320 young patients aged between 12 and 16 years. Half of the teeth (n = 640) were sealed with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Vitremer™, 3M ESPE) and the other half (n = 640) with a conventional light-cure, resin-based fissure sealant (LCRB) (Fluoroshield®, Dentsply Caulk). Teeth were evaluated at baseline, 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 30- and 36-month intervals with regard to retention and new caries development.
On the sealed occlusal surfaces after 3 years, 5.10% of RMGIC and 91.08% of LCRB sealants were totally intact and 6.37% of RMGIC and 7.65% of LCRB sealants were partially intact. New caries lesions were found in 20.06% of RMGIC sealed occlusal surfaces, compared to 8.91% for LCRB sealants.
The findings of the present clinical study suggest that RMGIC should be used only as a transitional sealant that can be applied to newly erupting teeth throughout the eruptive process, whereas LCRB sealants are used to successfully prevent occlusal caries lesions once an effective rubber dam can be achieved. It can be concluded that there are differences between the RMGIC and LCRB sealants over a 3-year period in terms of the retention rate and caries-preventive efficacy. RMGIC can serve as a simple and economic sealing solution, however provisional. Due to its poor retention rate, periodic recalls are necessary, even after 6 months, to eventually replace the lost sealant.
本前瞻性临床试验比较了两种类型的窝沟封闭剂在3年期间的保留率和防龋效果。
采用双侧随机设计，将1280颗窝沟封闭剂随机应用于320名年龄在12至16岁的年轻患者的健康恒牙第二磨牙上。一半的牙齿（n = 640）用树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀（RMGIC）（Vitremer™，3M ESPE）进行封闭，另一半（n = 640）用传统的光固化树脂类窝沟封闭剂（LCRB）（Fluoroshield®，Dentsply Caulk）进行封闭。在基线、6个月、12个月、18个月、24个月、30个月和36个月时对牙齿的保留情况和新龋发生情况进行评估。
3年后，在封闭的咬合面上，5.10%的RMGIC和91.08%的LCRB窝沟封闭剂完全完整，6.37%的RMGIC和7.65%的LCRB窝沟封闭剂部分完整。在RMGIC封闭的咬合面中，20.06%发现了新龋损，而LCRB窝沟封闭剂为8.91%。
本临床研究结果表明，RMGIC仅应用作过渡性窝沟封闭剂，可在整个萌出过程中应用于新萌出的牙齿，而一旦能够有效使用橡皮障，LCRB窝沟封闭剂可成功预防咬合面龋损。可以得出结论，在3年期间，RMGIC和LCRB窝沟封闭剂在保留率和防龋效果方面存在差异。RMGIC可作为一种简单且经济的封闭解决方案，不过是临时性的。由于其保留率低，即使在6个月后也需要定期回访，以最终替换丢失的窝沟封闭剂。
