Suppr超能文献

使用不同粘结方案放置窝沟封闭剂的临床随访:一项为期24个月的半口研究。

Clinical Follow-up of a Fissure Sealant Placed Using Different Adhesive Protocols: A 24-month Split-mouth Study.

作者信息

Yazici A R, Bayazit E Ozturk, Kutuk Z B, Ozgunaltay G, Ergin E, Berber A

出版信息

Oper Dent. 2018 Jul/Aug;43(4):362-371. doi: 10.2341/17-055-C. Epub 2018 Apr 9.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention rates of a fissure sealant placed using different adhesive protocols over 24 months. Twenty-four subjects with no restorations or caries received fissure sealants (Clinpro Sealant, 3M ESPE) placed using different adhesive protocols. A total of 292 sealants were placed as follows by two previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers (n=73): group I, acid-etch/without adhesive; group II, with a self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE); group III, with an etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE); group IV, with acid + self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond). Two other calibrated examiners independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at six-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = total retention, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. Pearson's χ test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants for each evaluation period. At the end of 24 months, total retention rates were 57.5%, 27.4%, 84.9%, and 76.7% in the acid-etch, self-etch adhesive, etch-and-rinse adhesive, and acid + self-etch adhesive groups, respectively. Although there were no statistically significant differences between the retention rates among the adhesive protocols at 6 months ( p=0.684), significant differences were observed at the 12-, 18-, and 24-month evaluations. At 24 months, the lowest retention rates were observed in the self-etch group ( p<0.05). No caries development was observed in any of the groups. The retention rate of sealants placed using self-etch adhesive was poor compared with the other groups.

摘要

本研究的目的是评估采用不同粘结方案放置的窝沟封闭剂在24个月内的保留率。24名无修复体或龋齿的受试者接受了采用不同粘结方案放置的窝沟封闭剂(Clinpro封闭剂,3M ESPE)。两名先前经过校准的牙医使用随机数表共放置了292颗封闭剂(n = 73):第一组,酸蚀/不使用粘结剂;第二组,使用自酸蚀粘结剂(Adper Easy Bond,3M ESPE);第三组,使用酸蚀冲洗粘结剂(Adper Single Bond 2,3M ESPE);第四组,使用酸 + 自酸蚀粘结剂(Adper Easy Bond)。另外两名经过校准的检查者在基线以及6个月、12个月、18个月和24个月复查时独立评估封闭剂。根据以下标准,对每颗封闭剂的龋齿形成情况和保留情况进行评估:1 = 完全保留,2 = 部分脱落,3 = 完全脱落。使用Pearson卡方检验评估每个评估期内封闭剂保留率的差异。在24个月结束时,酸蚀组、自酸蚀粘结剂组、酸蚀冲洗粘结剂组和酸 + 自酸蚀粘结剂组的完全保留率分别为57.5%、27.4%、84.9%和76.7%。虽然在6个月时粘结方案之间的保留率无统计学显著差异(p = 0.684),但在12个月、18个月和24个月评估时观察到显著差异。在24个月时,自酸蚀组的保留率最低(p < 0.05)。所有组均未观察到龋齿发展。与其他组相比,使用自酸蚀粘结剂放置的封闭剂保留率较差。

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