Wright John T, Tampi Malavika P, Graham Laurel, Estrich Cameron, Crall James J, Fontana Margherita, Gillette E Jane, Nový Brian B, Dhar Vineet, Donly Kevin, Hewlett Edmond R, Quinonez Rocio B, Chaffin Jeffrey, Crespin Matt, Iafolla Timothy, Siegal Mark D, Carrasco-Labra Alonso
J Am Dent Assoc. 2016 Aug;147(8):631-645.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.06.003.
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011-2012 data indicated that, in the United States, nearly one-fourth of children and over one-half of adolescents experienced dental caries in their permanent teeth. The purpose of this review was to summarize the available clinical evidence regarding the effect of dental sealants for the prevention and management of pit-and-fissure occlusal carious lesions in primary and permanent molars, compared with a control without sealants, with fluoride varnishes, or with other head-to head comparisons.
The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials that included at least 2 years of follow-up, which they identified using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and registers of ongoing trials. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and quality of the evidence assessments by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Of 2,869 records screened, the authors determined that 24 articles (representing 23 studies) proved eligible. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that participants who received sealants had a reduced risk of developing carious lesions in occlusal surfaces of permanent molars compared with those who did not receive sealants (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.27) after 7 or more years of follow-up. When the authors compared studies whose investigators had compared sealants with fluoride varnishes, they found that sealants reduced the incidence of carious lesions after 7 or more years of follow-up (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.51); however, this finding was supported by low-quality evidence. On the basis of the evidence, the authors could not provide a hierarchy of effectiveness among the studies whose investigators had conducted head-to-head comparisons. The investigators of 2 trials provided information about adverse events, but they did not report any adverse events.
Available evidence suggests that sealants are effective and safe to prevent or arrest the progression of noncavitated carious lesions compared with a control without sealants or fluoride varnishes. Further research is needed to provide information about the relative merits of the different types of sealant materials.
2011 - 2012年美国国家健康与营养检查调查数据表明,在美国,近四分之一的儿童和超过一半的青少年恒牙出现龋齿。本综述的目的是总结现有临床证据,以比较与未使用窝沟封闭剂、使用氟化物漆或其他直接比较的对照相比,窝沟封闭剂在预防和管理乳牙及恒牙磨牙窝沟龋损方面的效果。
作者纳入了平行和半口随机对照试验,这些试验至少有2年的随访期,他们通过MEDLINE(通过PubMed)、Embase、LILACS、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库和正在进行的试验注册库来识别这些试验。成对的评审员使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价方法,独立进行研究选择、数据提取、偏倚风险评估和证据质量评估。
在筛选的2869条记录中,作者确定24篇文章(代表23项研究)符合条件。中等质量的证据表明,与未接受窝沟封闭剂的参与者相比,接受窝沟封闭剂的参与者在随访7年或更长时间后,恒牙磨牙咬合面发生龋损的风险降低(优势比[OR],0.15;95%置信区间[CI],0.08 - 0.27)。当作者比较研究者将窝沟封闭剂与氟化物漆进行比较的研究时,他们发现窝沟封闭剂在随访7年或更长时间后降低了龋损的发生率(OR,0.19;95% CI,0.07 - 0.51);然而,这一发现得到的是低质量证据的支持。基于这些证据,作者无法在研究者进行直接比较的研究中提供有效性的等级排序。2项试验的研究者提供了不良事件的信息,但他们未报告任何不良事件。
现有证据表明,与未使用窝沟封闭剂或氟化物漆的对照相比,窝沟封闭剂在预防或阻止非龋洞性龋损进展方面是有效且安全的。需要进一步研究以提供不同类型窝沟封闭剂材料相对优点的信息。