Kamath Vinayak, Hebbal Mamata, Ankola Anil, Sankeshwari Roopali, Jalihal Sagar, Choudhury Abhra, Soliman Mai, Eldwakhly Elzahraa
Department of Public Health Dentistry, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim 403202, India.
Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh 11671, Saudi Arabia.
J Clin Med. 2022 Jun 8;11(12):3276. doi: 10.3390/jcm11123276.
Background: This study compared conventional-resin-sealant versus nanofilled-sealant retention at different intervals. Methods: A double-blinded split-mouth randomized control trial was performed on sixty-two children aged from six to nine years. Participants with one pair of contralateral permanent first molars with deep fissures or noncavitated carious lesions were randomly selected for sealant application. Conventional resin sealant was applied on one molar and nanofilled sealant on the contralateral molar. Evaluations were performed at one, three, six, twelve and eighteen months to check for retention. The chi-squared test, McNemar test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Friedman test were used for statistical analysis. Results: Conventional resin sealant showed complete retention in 91.4%, 86.2%, 74.1%, 62.1% and 55.2% of the teeth, and nanofilled sealant showed complete retention in 89.7%, 81%, 77.6%, 69% and 67.2% of the teeth, at the end of 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 18 months evaluation, respectively. Each sealant exhibited a statistically significant change (p < 0.05) in the retention rate during the evaluation period. However, when both the sealants were compared with each other, there was no statistically significant difference in any phase. At the end of 18 months, caries development was observed in 13.8% of the teeth sealed with conventional sealant, and in 10.3% of the teeth sealed with nanofilled sealant. Conclusion: At eighteen months, the nanofilled resin sealant exhibited complete retention in 12% more teeth than the conventional sealant. However, the difference was not statistically significant. The nanofilled resin sealant yielded an acceptable performance in sealing the occlusal pits and fissures of mandibular permanent first molars, compared to conventional pit-and-fissure sealants.
本研究比较了传统树脂封闭剂与纳米填料封闭剂在不同时间间隔下的保留情况。方法：对62名6至9岁的儿童进行了一项双盲、口内对照的随机对照试验。随机选择有一对对侧恒第一磨牙有深沟或非龋性龋损的参与者进行封闭剂应用。在一侧磨牙上应用传统树脂封闭剂，在对侧磨牙上应用纳米填料封闭剂。在1、3、6、12和18个月时进行评估以检查保留情况。采用卡方检验、McNemar检验、Wilcoxon符号秩检验和Friedman检验进行统计分析。结果：在1个月、3个月、6个月、12个月和18个月评估结束时，传统树脂封闭剂在91.4%、86.2%、74.1%、62.1%和55.2%的牙齿中显示完全保留，纳米填料封闭剂在89.7%、81%、77.6%、69%和67.2%的牙齿中显示完全保留。在评估期间，每种封闭剂的保留率均有统计学显著变化（p < 0.05）。然而，当两种封闭剂相互比较时，在任何阶段均无统计学显著差异。在18个月结束时，用传统封闭剂封闭的牙齿中有13.8%观察到龋齿发展，用纳米填料封闭剂封闭的牙齿中有10.3%观察到龋齿发展。结论：在18个月时，纳米填料树脂封闭剂比传统封闭剂在多12%的牙齿中显示完全保留。然而，差异无统计学显著性。与传统窝沟封闭剂相比，纳米填料树脂封闭剂在下颌恒第一磨牙的咬合窝沟封闭中表现出可接受的性能。
