Hilgert Leandro Augusto, Leal Soraya Coelho, Freire Gabriela Mesquita Lopes, Mulder Jan, Frencken Jo E
Universidade de Brasília, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Private Practice, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Braz Oral Res. 2017 May 4;31:e35. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0035.
The aim was to test the null-hypothesis that there is no difference in the cumulative survival rate of retained composite resin (CR) sealants and a high-viscosity glass-ionomer Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) sealant in first permanent molars calculated according to the traditional and the modified retention assessment criteria over a period of 3 years. This cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial consisted of 123 schoolchildren, 6-7-years-old. At baseline, high-caries risk pits and fissures of fully erupted first permanent molars were treated with CR and ART sealants. Evaluations were performed after 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 years. Retention was scored for free-smooth surface and for each of three sections into which the occlusal surface had been divided. The modified criterion differed from the traditional in that it determined an occlusal sealant to be a failure when at least one section contained no visible sealant material. Data were analysed according to the PHREG model with frailty correction, Wald-test, ANOVA and t-test, using the Jackknife procedure. The cumulative survival rates for retained CR and ART sealants in free-smooth and occlusal surfaces for both criteria were not statistically significantly different over the 3 years. A higher percentage of retained CR sealants on occlusal surfaces was observed at longer evaluations. Cumulative survival rates were statistically significantly lower for the modified criterion in comparison to the traditional. The modified retention assessment criterion should be used in future sealant-retention studies.
目的是检验零假设，即在3年期间，根据传统和改良的保留评估标准计算，第一恒磨牙中保留的复合树脂（CR）封闭剂和高粘度玻璃离子非创伤性修复治疗（ART）封闭剂的累积生存率没有差异。这项整群随机对照临床试验由123名6至7岁的学童组成。在基线时，对完全萌出的第一恒磨牙的高龋风险窝沟用CR和ART封闭剂进行治疗。在0.5、1、2和3年后进行评估。对自由光滑表面以及咬合面划分的三个部分中的每一部分的保留情况进行评分。改良标准与传统标准的不同之处在于，当至少有一个部分没有可见的封闭剂材料时，它将咬合封闭剂判定为失败。使用刀切法，根据带有脆弱性校正的PHREG模型、Wald检验、方差分析和t检验对数据进行分析。在3年期间，两种标准下自由光滑表面和咬合面中保留的CR和ART封闭剂的累积生存率在统计学上没有显著差异。在更长时间的评估中，观察到咬合面上保留的CR封闭剂百分比更高。与传统标准相比，改良标准的累积生存率在统计学上显著更低。未来的封闭剂保留研究应使用改良的保留评估标准。
