Suppr超能文献

用于预防恒牙龋齿的窝沟封闭剂。

Sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth.

作者信息

Ahovuo-Saloranta Anneli, Forss Helena, Walsh Tanya, Hiiri Anne, Nordblad Anne, Mäkelä Marjukka, Worthington Helen V

机构信息

Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment / FinOHTA, National Institute for Health and Welfare / THL, Tampere, Finland.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Mar 28(3):CD001830. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Dental sealants were introduced in the 1960s to help prevent dental caries in the pits and fissures of mainly the occlusal tooth surfaces. Sealants act to prevent the growth of bacteria that can lead to dental decay. There is evidence to suggest that fissure sealants are effective in preventing caries in children and adolescents when compared to no sealants. Their effectiveness may be related to the caries prevalence in the population.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different types of fissure sealants in preventing caries in permanent teeth in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 1 November 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 1 November 2012); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 November 2012); SCISEARCH, CAplus, INSPEC, NTIS and PASCAL via STN Easy (to 1 September 2012); and DARE, NHS EED and HTA (via the CAIRS web interface to 29 March 2012 and thereafter via Metaxis interface to September 2012). There were no language or publication restrictions. We also searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov (to 23 July 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of at least 12 months duration comparing sealants for preventing caries of occlusal or approximal surfaces of premolar or molar teeth with no sealant or different type of sealant in children and adolescents under 20 years of age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for caries or no caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth. For trials with a split-mouth design, the Becker-Balagtas odds ratio was used. For mean caries increment we used the mean difference. All measures are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. We conducted the meta-analyses using a random-effects model for those comparisons where there were more than three trials in the same comparison, otherwise the fixed-effect model was used.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-four trials are included in the review. Twelve trials evaluated the effects of sealant compared with no sealant (2575 participants) (one of those 12 trials stated only number of tooth pairs); 21 trials evaluated one type of sealant compared with another (3202 participants); and one trial evaluated two different types of sealant and no sealant (752 participants). Children were aged from 5 to 16 years. Trials rarely reported the background exposure to fluoride of the trial participants or the baseline caries prevalence.- Resin-based sealant compared with no sealant: Compared to control without sealant, second or third or fourth generation resin-based sealants prevented caries in first permanent molars in children aged 5 to 10 years (at 2 years of follow-up odds ratio (OR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.19, six trials (five published in the 1970s and one in 2012), at low risk of bias, 1259 children randomised, 1066 children evaluated, moderate quality evidence). If we were to assume that 40% of the control tooth surfaces were decayed during 2 years of follow-up (400 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant will reduce the proportion of the carious surfaces to 6.25% (95% CI 3.84% to 9.63%); similarly if we were to assume that 70% of the control tooth surfaces were decayed  (700 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant will reduce the proportion of the carious surfaces to 18.92% (95% CI 12.28% to 27.18%). This caries preventive effect was maintained at longer follow-up but both the quality and quantity of the evidence was reduced (e.g. at 48 to 54 months of follow-up OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.28, four trials (two studies at low risk of bias and two studies at high risk of bias), 482 children evaluated; risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.45, one study at unclear risk of bias, 203 children evaluated).- Glass ionomer sealant compared with no sealant: There is insufficient evidence to make any conclusions about whether glass ionomer sealants, prevent caries compared to no sealant at 24-month follow-up (mean difference in DFS -0.18, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.03, one trial at unclear risk of bias, 452 children randomised, 404 children evaluated, very low quality evidence).- Sealant compared with another sealant: The relative effectiveness of different types of sealants remained inconclusive in this review. Twenty-one trials directly compared two different sealant materials. Several different comparisons were made according to type of sealant, outcome measure and duration of follow-up. There was great variation with regard to comparisons, outcomes, time of outcomes reported and background fluoride exposure if this was reported.Fifteen trials compared glass ionomer with resin sealants and there is insufficient evidence to make any conclusions about the superiority of either of the two materials. Although there were 15 trials the event rate was very low in many of these which restricted their contribution to the results.Three trials compared resin-modified glass ionomer with resin sealant and reported inconsistent results.Two small low quality trials compared polyacid-modified resin sealants with resin sealants and found no difference in caries after 2 years.- Adverse effects: Only two trials mentioned adverse effects and stated that no adverse effects were reported by participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The application of sealants is a recommended procedure to prevent or control caries. Sealing the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars in children and adolescents reduces caries up to 48 months when compared to no sealant, after longer follow-up the quantity and quality of the evidence is reduced. The review revealed that sealants are effective in high risk children but information on the magnitude of the benefit of sealing in other conditions is scarce. The relative effectiveness of different types of sealants has yet to be established.

摘要

背景

牙面窝沟封闭剂于20世纪60年代开始应用,主要用于预防恒牙咬合面窝沟龋。窝沟封闭剂可阻止导致龋齿的细菌生长。有证据表明,与不使用窝沟封闭剂相比,窝沟封闭剂对预防儿童和青少年龋齿有效。其有效性可能与人群中的龋齿患病率有关。

目的

比较不同类型的窝沟封闭剂对预防儿童和青少年恒牙龋齿的效果。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册库(截至2012年11月1日);Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2012年第7期);通过OVID检索MEDLINE(1946年至2012年11月1日);通过OVID检索EMBASE(1980年至2012年11月1日);通过STN Easy检索SCISEARCH、CAplus、INSPEC、NTIS和PASCAL(截至2012年9月1日);以及DARE、NHS EED和HTA(通过CAIRS网络界面检索至2012年3月29日,之后通过Metaxis界面检索至2012年9月)。没有语言或出版限制。我们还通过ClinicalTrials.gov检索了正在进行的试验(截至2012年7月23日)。

选择标准

随机或半随机对照试验,持续时间至少12个月,比较窝沟封闭剂与不使用窝沟封闭剂或不同类型的窝沟封闭剂对20岁以下儿童和青少年前磨牙或磨牙咬合面或邻面龋齿的预防效果。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立筛选检索结果、提取数据并评估试验质量。我们计算了恒牙磨牙咬合面患龋或未患龋的比值比(OR)。对于采用分口设计的试验,使用Becker-Balagtas比值比。对于平均龋增量,我们使用平均差。所有测量值均给出95%置信区间(CI)。使用GRADE方法评估证据质量。对于同一比较中有三项以上试验的情况,我们采用随机效应模型进行Meta分析,否则使用固定效应模型。

主要结果

本综述纳入了34项试验。12项试验评估了窝沟封闭剂与不使用窝沟封闭剂的效果比较(2575名参与者)(其中12项试验之一仅说明了牙对数量);21项试验评估了一种窝沟封闭剂与另一种窝沟封闭剂的效果比较(3202名参与者);1项试验评估了两种不同类型的窝沟封闭剂与不使用窝沟封闭剂的效果比较(752名参与者)。儿童年龄在5至16岁之间。试验很少报告试验参与者的氟暴露背景或基线龋齿患病率。

  • 树脂基窝沟封闭剂与不使用窝沟封闭剂比较:与未使用窝沟封闭剂的对照组相比,第二代、第三代或第四代树脂基窝沟封闭剂可预防5至10岁儿童第一恒磨牙患龋(随访2年时比值比(OR)为0.12,95%置信区间(CI)为0.07至0.19,六项试验(五项发表于20世纪70年代,一项发表于2012年),偏倚风险低,1259名儿童随机分组,1066名儿童接受评估,中等质量证据)。如果我们假设在2年随访期间对照组40%的牙面发生龋坏(每1000颗牙中有400颗龋坏牙),那么应用树脂基窝沟封闭剂将使龋坏面的比例降至6.25%(95%CI为3.84%至9.63%);同样,如果我们假设对照组70%的牙面发生龋坏(每1000颗牙中有700颗龋坏牙),那么应用树脂基窝沟封闭剂将使龋坏面的比例降至18.92%(95%CI为12.28%至27.18%)。这种防龋效果在更长时间的随访中得以维持,但证据的质量和数量均有所下降(例如,在随访48至54个月时OR为0.21,95%CI为0.16至0.28,四项试验(两项研究偏倚风险低,两项研究偏倚风险高),482名儿童接受评估;风险比(RR)为0.24,95%CI为0.12至0.45,一项研究偏倚风险不明确,203名儿童接受评估)。

  • 玻璃离子窝沟封闭剂与不使用窝沟封闭剂比较:在24个月随访时,关于玻璃离子窝沟封闭剂与不使用窝沟封闭剂相比是否能预防龋齿,证据不足(DFS的平均差为-0.18,95%CI为-0.39至0.03,一项试验偏倚风险不明确,452名儿童随机分组,404名儿童接受评估,极低质量证据)。

  • 窝沟封闭剂与另一种窝沟封闭剂比较:在本综述中,不同类型窝沟封闭剂的相对有效性仍无定论。21项试验直接比较了两种不同的窝沟封闭剂材料。根据窝沟封闭剂类型、结局测量和随访持续时间进行了几种不同的比较。在比较、结局、结局报告时间以及如果报告的话氟暴露背景方面存在很大差异。15项试验比较了玻璃离子窝沟封闭剂与树脂窝沟封闭剂,关于两种材料中任何一种的优越性,证据不足。尽管有15项试验,但其中许多试验的事件发生率非常低,这限制了它们对结果的贡献。3项试验比较了树脂改性玻璃离子窝沟封闭剂与树脂窝沟封闭剂,结果不一致。2项小型低质量试验比较了聚酸改性树脂窝沟封闭剂与树脂窝沟封闭剂,发现2年后龋病无差异。

  • 不良反应:只有两项试验提到了不良反应,并表示参与者未报告不良反应。

作者结论

应用窝沟封闭剂是预防或控制龋齿的推荐方法。与不使用窝沟封闭剂相比,对儿童和青少年恒牙磨牙咬合面进行封闭可在长达48个月内降低龋齿发生率,随访时间更长时,证据的数量和质量会下降。综述显示,窝沟封闭剂对高危儿童有效,但关于在其他情况下封闭的益处程度的信息很少。不同类型窝沟封闭剂的相对有效性尚未确定。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验