Department of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Dental Clinic of the Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Apr;17(3):711-6. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0740-2. Epub 2012 May 3.
Fissure sealings offer nearly complete protection against fissure caries, provided that they are adequately applied, for composite-based sealants with sufficient moisture control. This is not always attainable, particularly in children with low compliance. To counter this problem, a moisture-tolerant sealant has been developed. The present randomised clinical trial compared such a moisture-tolerant material (Embrace) with a conventional sealant (Helioseal).
In 55 participants (mean age, 10 ± 3 years), corresponding molar pairs were sealed with either Embrace or Helioseal. Retention, quality of sealing, and caries were clinically examined, both tactilely and visually, immediately and after 1 year.
After 1 year, 93% of Helioseal sealings were complete, whereas 60% of Embrace sealings showed partial and 13% complete loss. The surface quality of Embrace was significantly worse than that of Helioseal. After the use of Embrace, the sealant margin was noticeable as a slight (distinct) step in 36% (15%). The visual (tactile) examination showed a rough surface in 78% (33%) in the case of Embrace. The Helioseal surfaces were shiny (smooth) in all cases (all differences between Helioseal and Embrace, p ≤ 0.001). Caries was found only after the use of Embrace (4%, n.s. compared to Helioseal).
The moisture-tolerant material Embrace was distinctly inferior to Helioseal because Embrace showed weaknesses in retention and surface quality.
Even if a moisture-tolerant sealant would be desirable in particular for children with low compliance, the tested material does not represent an alternative to the standard preparation.
如果复合树脂基密封剂能够充分控制水分并且得到适当应用,那么窝沟封闭几乎可以完全预防窝沟龋。但在低顺应性的儿童中,这一点往往难以实现。为了解决这个问题,已经开发出一种耐湿性的密封剂。本随机临床试验比较了这种耐湿性材料(Embrace)和传统的密封剂(Helioseal)。
在 55 名参与者(平均年龄 10±3 岁)中,相应的磨牙对分别用 Embrace 或 Helioseal 进行封闭。即刻和 1 年后,通过触诊和视觉检查,临床检查保留、密封质量和龋齿情况。
1 年后,Helioseal 封闭剂的完整率为 93%,而 Embrace 封闭剂的部分保留率为 60%,完全保留率为 13%。Embrace 的表面质量明显差于 Helioseal。使用 Embrace 后,在 36%(15%)的情况下,密封剂边缘明显可见轻微(明显)的台阶。在 Embrace 的情况下,触诊(视觉)检查显示 78%(33%)的表面粗糙。所有情况下 Helioseal 表面均有光泽(光滑)(所有 Helioseal 和 Embrace 之间的差异,p≤0.001)。仅在使用 Embrace 后发现龋齿(4%,与 Helioseal 相比无统计学意义)。
耐湿性材料 Embrace 的性能明显劣于 Helioseal,因为 Embrace 在保留和表面质量方面存在弱点。
即使对于低顺应性的儿童来说,耐湿性密封剂可能是理想的,但测试材料并不能替代标准制剂。