Bhadule Shivani N, Kalaskar Ritesh, Kalaskar Ashita, Krishnakumar Karthika, Joshi Suyash, Balasubramanian Shruti
Department of Pediatric & Preventive Dentistry, Government Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Government Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2024 Mar;17(3):377-384. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2782.
The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic review to assess and compare the effectiveness of the air abrasion technique with that of the conventional acid-etching technique performed before the placement of pit and fissure sealants.
A search of studies was conducted in May 2021 using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. Clinical trials in the English language between 1997 and 2019 were included. The quality of the studies was analyzed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.
The search retrieved 276 references, out of which seven studies were included for a qualitative analysis. In these seven studies, the risk of bias across the Cochrane tool's domains varied from low to high. All the included studies considered acid-etching as a comparator to air abrasion technique either used alone or as an adjunct to acid-etching technique.
When coverage of sealants or their retentivity was compared at different time intervals, it was more in the acid-etching group than in the air abrasion group. Similarly, carious lesions were seen more in the air abrasion group than in the acid-etching group. The air abrasion technique followed by acid-etching brought superior retention properties of sealants than the acid-etching technique alone.
Bhadule SN, Kalaskar R, Kalaskar A, Clinical Effectiveness of Air Abrasion When Compared to Conventional Acid-etching Technique in Enhancing the Retention of Pit and Fissure Sealants: A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(3):377-384.
我们研究的目的是进行一项系统评价，以评估和比较在放置窝沟封闭剂之前，空气喷砂技术与传统酸蚀技术的有效性。
2021年5月使用PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和谷歌学术数据库进行了研究检索。纳入了1997年至2019年间的英文临床试验。使用Cochrane协作工具分析研究质量。
检索到276篇参考文献，其中7项研究纳入定性分析。在这7项研究中，Cochrane工具各领域的偏倚风险从低到高不等。所有纳入研究均将酸蚀作为空气喷砂技术单独使用或作为酸蚀技术辅助手段的对照。
在不同时间间隔比较封闭剂的覆盖率或保留率时，酸蚀组高于空气喷砂组。同样，空气喷砂组的龋损比酸蚀组更多。空气喷砂技术后再进行酸蚀，封闭剂的保留性能优于单独的酸蚀技术。
Bhadule SN, Kalaskar R, Kalaskar A, 与传统酸蚀技术相比，空气喷砂在提高窝沟封闭剂保留率方面的临床有效性：一项系统评价。《国际临床儿科牙科学杂志》2024；17(3):377 - 384。
