Anauate-Netto Camillo, Borelli Laurindo, Amore Ricardo, DI Hipólito Vinicius, D'Alpino Paulo Henrique Perlatti
Universidade Metropolitana de Santos, Centro de Pós-Graduação, Santos, SP, Brasil.
Clínica particular, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
J Appl Oral Sci. 2017 Jul-Aug;25(4):442-454. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0633.
To evaluate the efficacy of a conservative treatment to prevent the progression of caries using an infiltrant on non-cavitated pit and fissures.
This controlled clinical trial selected 23 volunteers with clinically and radiographically non-cavitated occlusal caries among patients presenting a "rather low" to "very high" caries risk. Eighty-six teeth were randomly divided into two experimental groups: teeth receiving a commercial pit-and-fissure sealant (Alpha Seal-DFL) and contralateral teeth receiving Icon infiltrant (DMG). Caries progression was monitored by clinical (laser fluorescence caries detection) and radiographic examination at 12-month intervals over a period of 3 years of monitored caries progression. Probing the sealing materials to detect areas of retention was also used to evaluate marginal integrity.
Statistical analysis showed no difference in caries progression using laser fluorescence caries detection when both materials were compared, regardless of the evaluation times (p>0.05). No significance was observed when the marginal sealant integrity of both materials was compared, regardless of the evaluation time (p<0.05). Marginal integrity significantly reduced after 1 year for both materials (p<0.05), but remained stable after 2 and 3 years of evaluation, compared with 1-year results (p>0.05). SEM analysis exhibited a more homogeneous sealing for the infiltrant than obtained by the sealant.
The infiltrant was effective to prevent the caries progression in non-cavitated pit-and-fissures after 3 years of clinical evaluation, comparable with the conventional sealant. The infiltrant also presented better results in terms of caries progression at the 3-year evaluation time using the radiographic analysis.
评估使用渗透剂对非龋性窝沟进行保守治疗以预防龋齿进展的疗效。
这项对照临床试验选取了23名龋齿风险为“相当低”至“非常高”的患者,他们在临床和影像学上均有非龋性咬合面龋齿。86颗牙齿被随机分为两个实验组:一组牙齿接受市售窝沟封闭剂(Alpha Seal-DFL),对侧牙齿接受Icon渗透剂(DMG)。在3年的龋齿进展监测期内,每隔12个月通过临床(激光荧光龋齿检测)和影像学检查来监测龋齿进展。还通过探测封闭材料以检测留存区域来评估边缘完整性。
统计分析表明,在比较两种材料时,无论评估时间如何,使用激光荧光龋齿检测法检测到的龋齿进展均无差异(p>0.05)。比较两种材料的边缘封闭剂完整性时,无论评估时间如何,均未观察到显著性差异(p<0.05)。两种材料在1年后边缘完整性均显著降低(p<0.05),但与1年的结果相比,在评估2年和3年后保持稳定(p>0.05)。扫描电子显微镜分析显示,渗透剂的封闭比封闭剂更均匀。
经过3年的临床评估,渗透剂在预防非龋性窝沟龋齿进展方面是有效的,与传统封闭剂相当。在3年评估期使用影像学分析时,渗透剂在龋齿进展方面也呈现出更好的结果。