Caries Research Unit UNICA, Dental Faculty, Universidad El Bosque, Cra. 7B Bis No. 132-11, Bogotá, Colombia.
J Dent Res. 2012 Mar;91(3):288-92. doi: 10.1177/0022034511435328. Epub 2012 Jan 17.
This randomized split-mouth controlled clinical trial aimed at assessing the therapeutic effects of infiltration vs. sealing for controlling caries progression on proximal surfaces. Out of 90 adult students/patients assessed at university clinics and agreeing to participate, 39, each with 3 proximal lesions identified radiographically around the enamel-dentin junction to the outer third of the dentin, were included. Lesions were randomly allocated for treatment to test-A (Infiltration: ICON-pre-product; DMG), test-B (Sealing: Prime-Bond-NT; Dentsply), or control-C (Placebo). Primary outcome after 1, 2, and 3 yrs of radiographically observed lesion progression was assessed by an independent examiner blinded to groups, using pair-wise and digital-subtraction readings. No adverse events occurred. In 37 participants assessed after 3 yrs, 10 lesions (A-4; B-2; C-4) progressed deep into dentin and needed operative treatment. The 3-year therapeutic effect, based on pair-wise radiographic readings between infiltration and placebo, was 37.8% (95% CI: 20.5-55.2%) and that between sealing and placebo was 29.7% (95% CI: 20.2-35.0%). One-year follow-up digital-subtraction readings showed significant differences in lesion progression between infiltration and placebo (P = 0.0012) and between sealing and placebo (P = 0.0269). The study showed that infiltration and sealing are significantly better than placebo treatment for controlling caries progression on proximal lesions. No significant difference was seen between infiltration and sealing (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01417832).
这项随机分组、口腔内对照的临床试验旨在评估渗透与封闭技术对控制近中面窝沟龋进展的疗效。从大学诊所评估并同意参与的 90 名成年学生/患者中,选择 39 名患者,每名患者有 3 个近中面窝沟龋,在釉牙骨质界到牙本质外 1/3 处放射影像上可见。将病变随机分配到测试 A(渗透:ICON 预处理剂;DMG)、测试 B(封闭:Prime-Bond-NT;Dentsply)或对照 C(安慰剂)组进行治疗。使用配对和数字减影读数,由对分组不知情的独立检查者在 1、2 和 3 年后评估放射影像观察到的病变进展的主要结果。在 3 年后评估的 37 名参与者中,有 10 个病变(A-4;B-2;C-4)向牙本质深部进展,需要进行手术治疗。基于渗透与安慰剂之间的放射影像配对读数,3 年的治疗效果为 37.8%(95%CI:20.5-55.2%),而封闭与安慰剂之间的治疗效果为 29.7%(95%CI:20.2-35.0%)。1 年的随访数字减影读数显示,渗透与安慰剂之间(P = 0.0012)和封闭与安慰剂之间(P = 0.0269)病变进展存在显著差异。该研究表明,渗透和封闭技术在控制近中面窝沟龋进展方面明显优于安慰剂治疗。渗透与封闭之间未见显著差异(ClinicalTrials.gov 编号:NCT01417832)。