Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, The State University of New York at Buffalo, N.Y. 14214, USA.
J Am Dent Assoc. 2012 Feb;143(2):115-22. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0121.
Glass ionomer sealants are an alternative to resin-based sealants, especially for use in partially erupted permanent molars. The authors conducted a study to compare the retention, marginal staining and cariostatic properties of a glass ionomer sealant with those of a resin-based sealant during a 24-month period.
We included in this study 39 patients aged 5 through 9 years who had bilateral partially erupted first permanent molars. One of us (S.B.) placed a resin-based sealant (Delton Plus FS+, Dentsply Professional, York, Pa.) (group D) on a partially erupted first molar in one quadrant of the maxilla or mandible and a glass ionomer sealant (GC Fuji Triage White, GC America, Alsip, Ill.) (group T) in the other quadrant. Two masked and calibrated investigators (S.A.A., J.C.) evaluated the sealants for retention, marginal staining and carious lesions at three, six, 12 and 24 months. The authors used a multinomial regression for statistical analysis (P < .05).
The recall rate was 69.2 percent at 24 months. Two sealants from group D and three from group T were lost completely. Complete retention rates at 24 months were 40.7 and 44.4 percent for groups D and T, respectively. The authors found no statistically significant difference in retention rates between groups at each recall examination (P > .05). For marginal staining, sealants in the resin-based group exhibited statistically higher marginal staining than did sealants in the glass ionomer group (P < .05). Although the authors detected no caries in teeth in group T, teeth in group D in which the sealant was lost completely experienced demineralization.
Resin-based and glass ionomer sealants exhibited similar retention rates at 24 months. However, marginal staining was lower in the glass ionomer group, and the authors found no caries in teeth in this group. Consequently, glass ionomer sealants may be a better choice when salivary contamination is expected.
Sealing during tooth eruption presents a particular challenge owing to difficulty in isolating the tooth. Glass ionomers may be a better material for sealing partially erupted molars.
玻璃离子水门汀是树脂基密封剂的替代品，尤其适用于部分萌出的恒牙。作者进行了一项研究，比较了玻璃离子水门汀和树脂基密封剂在 24 个月期间的保留率、边缘着色和防龋性能。
我们纳入了 39 名年龄在 5 至 9 岁的患者，他们的双侧第一恒磨牙部分萌出。我们中的一位（S.B.）在一个象限的上颌或下颌的部分萌出的第一恒磨牙上放置了一种树脂基密封剂（Delton Plus FS+，Dentsply Professional，York，Pa.）（组 D），而在另一个象限放置了一种玻璃离子水门汀（GC Fuji Triage White，GC America，Alsip，Ill.）（组 T）。两名经过盲法和校准的研究者（S.A.A.，J.C.）分别在 3、6、12 和 24 个月时评估了密封剂的保留率、边缘着色和龋损情况。作者使用多项二项式回归进行统计分析（P <.05）。
在 24 个月时，召回率为 69.2%。组 D 的两个密封剂和组 T 的三个密封剂完全丢失。在 24 个月时，组 D 和组 T 的完全保留率分别为 40.7%和 44.4%。在每次召回检查时，作者均未发现两组之间的保留率存在统计学差异（P >.05）。对于边缘着色，树脂基组的密封剂显示出统计学上高于玻璃离子组的边缘着色（P <.05）。尽管作者在组 T 中未发现龋齿，但在完全丢失密封剂的组 D 中，牙齿发生了脱矿。
树脂基和玻璃离子水门汀在 24 个月时表现出相似的保留率。然而，玻璃离子组的边缘着色较低，作者在该组中未发现龋齿。因此，当预期唾液污染时，玻璃离子水门汀可能是更好的选择。
在牙齿萌出期间进行密封具有一定的挑战性，因为难以隔离牙齿。玻璃离子可能是部分萌出磨牙的更好材料。
