Deery Chris
Academic Unit of Oral Health and Development, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Evid Based Dent. 2013 Sep;14(3):69-70. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400945.
Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline via OVID, EMBASE via OVID; SCISEARCH, CAplus, INSPEC, NTIS and PASCAL via STN Easy and DARE, NHS EED, HTA (all to September/ November 2012) and ClinicalTrials.gov (to July 2012). There were no restrictions on language or date of publication.
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of at least 12 months duration comparing no sealant with sealant, or different types of sealants, for preventing caries of occlusal or approximal surfaces of premolar or molar teeth in children and adolescents under 20 years of age.
Screening of search results, data extraction and assessment of trial quality (using GRADE methods) were by two reviewers independently.
There were 34 trials of children aged five to 16 years, with 12 trials (2575 participants) comparing sealants with no sealant, 21 trials (3202 participants) comparing one sealant with another and one trial (752 participants) comparing two types of sealant with no sealant.Resin sealants compared with no sealants prevented caries in the first permanent molars of children five to 10 years old (six trials at low risk of bias with two years follow up), (odds ratio (OR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.19). At 48 to 54 months follow-up, the caries preventive effect was maintained (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.28) although there were only four trials (two were at low and two at high risk of bias).No conclusions could be drawn as to whether glass ionomer sealants compared with no sealants prevented caries at 2 year follow-up. The mean difference in DFS was -0.18, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.03.The relative effectiveness of one type of sealant compared to a different type of sealant was inconclusive as there was great variation in comparisons, outcomes, times of outcomes and background fluoride levels in the 21 studies. There was insufficient evidence for the relative superiority of glass ionomer and resin sealants (very low event rate in many of the 15 trials). There were inconsistent results for resin-modified glass ionomer sealants compared with resin sealants. No difference in caries increments were found in the two small trials of polyacid-modified resin sealants compared with resin sealants.
Sealants compared with no sealants, on the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars in children and adolescents, are effective at reducing caries up to 48 months. There is less evidence for longer term follow-up and little for the relative effectiveness of sealing in less high caries risk children. No conclusions could be drawn on the relative effectiveness of different types of sealants.
考克兰口腔健康组试验注册库、Cochrane系统评价数据库、通过OVID检索的医学期刊数据库、通过OVID检索的循证医学数据库;科学引文索引、化学文摘数据库、工程索引数据库、美国国家技术信息服务处数据库以及通过STN Easy检索的帕斯卡数据库和DARE数据库、英国国家卫生服务系统经济评价数据库、卫生技术评估数据库(检索截至2012年9月/11月)以及临床研究数据库(检索截至2012年7月)。对语言和出版日期均无限制。
随机和半随机对照试验,试验持续时间至少12个月,比较未使用窝沟封闭剂与使用窝沟封闭剂,或不同类型窝沟封闭剂,预防20岁以下儿童和青少年前磨牙或磨牙咬合面或邻面龋病的效果。
两名评价员独立进行检索结果的筛选、数据提取以及试验质量评估(采用GRADE方法)。
有34项针对5至16岁儿童的试验,其中12项试验(2575名参与者)比较了窝沟封闭剂与未使用窝沟封闭剂,21项试验(3202名参与者)比较了一种窝沟封闭剂与另一种窝沟封闭剂,1项试验(752名参与者)比较了两种窝沟封闭剂与未使用窝沟封闭剂。与未使用窝沟封闭剂相比,树脂类窝沟封闭剂可预防5至10岁儿童第一恒磨牙龋病(6项低偏倚风险试验,随访两年),(比值比(OR)0.12,95%置信区间(CI)0.07至0.19)。在48至54个月的随访中,龋病预防效果得以维持(OR 0.21,95%CI 0.16至0.28),尽管仅有4项试验(2项低偏倚风险试验,2项高偏倚风险试验)。对于玻璃离子体窝沟封闭剂与未使用窝沟封闭剂相比在2年随访时是否预防龋病,无法得出结论。龋失补牙面数(DFS)的平均差值为 -0.18,95%CI -0.39至0.03。由于21项研究在比较、结局、结局时间以及背景氟水平方面存在很大差异,一种窝沟封闭剂相对于另一种不同类型窝沟封闭剂的相对有效性尚无定论。玻璃离子体窝沟封闭剂和树脂类窝沟封闭剂相对优越性的证据不足(15项试验中有许多试验的事件发生率非常低)。树脂改良玻璃离子体窝沟封闭剂与树脂类窝沟封闭剂相比,结果不一致。与树脂类窝沟封闭剂相比,在两项关于聚酸改性树脂类窝沟封闭剂的小型试验中未发现龋病增量有差异。
与未使用窝沟封闭剂相比,在儿童和青少年恒牙磨牙咬合面使用窝沟封闭剂在长达48个月时可有效减少龋病。长期随访的证据较少,对于龋病风险较低儿童使用窝沟封闭剂的相对有效性证据也很少。对于不同类型窝沟封闭剂的相对有效性无法得出结论。