两种流动型修复材料和传统树脂密封剂的保留率比较：两年随访。

Comparison of retention rates of fissure sealants using two flowable restorative materials and a conventional resin sealant: two-year follow-up.

机构信息

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Kırıkkale, Kırıkkale, Turkey.

出版信息

Med Princ Pract. 2012;21(3):234-7. doi: 10.1159/000333561. Epub 2011 Dec 8.

DOI:10.1159/000333561

PMID:22156663

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the retention rates of two flowable restorative systems (Admira Flow and Grandio Flow) with that of a conventional resin-based sealant (Fissurit F).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was planned as a clinical trial with a split-mouth design. A total of 122 sealants (38 Admira Flow, 41 Grandio Flow, 43 Fissurit F) were randomly applied to completely erupted permanent molars in 35 patients aged 9-20 years and followed up for 24 months. Data were analyzed using Pearson's χ(2) and multiple comparison tests.

RESULTS

At the end of the follow-up period, Fissurit F had higher retention rates (81.0%) than both Admira Flow (60.5%) and Grandio Flow (57.1%), with p < 0.05. However, there was no significant difference in caries development among groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The two flowable composite resin materials used as fissure sealant were less retentive than the conventional resin sealant.

摘要

目的

本临床研究旨在比较两种流动性修复体（Admira Flow 和 Grandio Flow）与传统的树脂基密封剂（Fissurit F）的保留率。

材料与方法

该研究采用了一种随机分组的临床实验设计。共有 35 名 9-20 岁的患者的完全萌出的恒牙随机接受了 38 个 Admira Flow、41 个 Grandio Flow 和 43 个 Fissurit F 的密封处理，并随访 24 个月。使用 Pearson χ(2)检验和多重比较检验对数据进行分析。