• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

封闭剂保留率、患者满意度及术者偏好:一项在牙科学校环境中比较EasyPrep和棉卷隔离法的口内对照随机试验。

Sealant retention, patient satisfaction, and operator preference: a split-mouth randomised controlled trial comparing EasyPrep and cotton roll isolation in a dental school setting.

作者信息

Kornkrasunk W, Manmontri C, Chompu-Inwai P, Nirunsittirat A, Tangtrakooljaroen W, Thiangjai B, Boonphirom P, Arjitpunyo S, Chaipattanawan N

机构信息

Division of Pediatric Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Division of Community Dentistry, Department of Family and Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

出版信息

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2025 Sep 15. doi: 10.1007/s40368-025-01111-9.

DOI:10.1007/s40368-025-01111-9
PMID:40954445
Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare sealant retention, patient satisfaction, and operator preference between EasyPrep and cotton roll isolation.

METHODS

This university-based, superiority, split-mouth randomised controlled trial enrolled 92 children aged 6-12 years with matched contralateral pairs of maxillary or mandibular permanent first molars (PFMs). Each participant was randomised to receive sealants using either EasyPrep or cotton roll isolation on one side, followed by the alternative method on the contralateral side. All sealants were placed by dental students under the faculty supervision and were assessed for retention by two blinded examiners at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Sealant retention success was compared between groups using risk regression with generalised estimating equations. Patient satisfaction and operator preference were assessed through interview-based questionnaires and summarised using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 180 pairs of PFMs included at baseline, 155 and 110 were evaluated at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. The relative risks of sealant retention success with EasyPrep compared to cotton roll isolation were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83; 1.09, p > 0.05) at 6 months and 0.96 (95% CI 0.76; 1.23, p > 0.05) at 12 months. These results indicate a slightly lower probability of retention success with EasyPrep at both time points, although the differences were not statistically significant. Moreover, children tended to prefer cotton roll isolation (44.6%), whereas operators favoured EasyPrep (59.8%).

CONCLUSION

Although most operators preferred EasyPrep, its sealant retention was not superior to that of cotton roll isolation. Moreover, patients' preference was more toward cotton roll isolation.

摘要

目的

比较EasyPrep与棉卷隔离法在窝沟封闭剂保留率、患者满意度及术者偏好方面的差异。

方法

本基于大学的优效性、双侧随机对照试验纳入了92名6至12岁的儿童,其双侧上颌或下颌第一恒磨牙(PFMs)相互匹配。每位参与者被随机分配,一侧使用EasyPrep或棉卷隔离法进行窝沟封闭,另一侧则采用另一种方法。所有窝沟封闭均由牙科学生在教员监督下进行,并在6个月和12个月随访时由两名盲法检查者评估封闭剂的保留情况。使用广义估计方程的风险回归比较两组之间的窝沟封闭剂保留成功率。通过基于访谈的问卷评估患者满意度和术者偏好,并使用描述性统计进行总结。

结果

在基线纳入的180对PFMs中,分别有155对和110对在6个月和12个月随访时进行了评估。与棉卷隔离法相比,EasyPrep在6个月时窝沟封闭剂保留成功的相对风险为0.95(95%置信区间[CI] 0.83;1.09,p>0.05),在12个月时为0.96(95%CI 0.76;1.23,p>0.05)。这些结果表明,在两个时间点,EasyPrep的保留成功率略低,尽管差异无统计学意义。此外,儿童倾向于更喜欢棉卷隔离法(44.6%),而术者则更青睐EasyPrep(59.8%)。

结论

尽管大多数术者更喜欢EasyPrep,但其窝沟封闭剂的保留率并不优于棉卷隔离法。此外,患者更倾向于棉卷隔离法。

相似文献

1
Sealant retention, patient satisfaction, and operator preference: a split-mouth randomised controlled trial comparing EasyPrep and cotton roll isolation in a dental school setting.封闭剂保留率、患者满意度及术者偏好:一项在牙科学校环境中比较EasyPrep和棉卷隔离法的口内对照随机试验。
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2025 Sep 15. doi: 10.1007/s40368-025-01111-9.
2
Sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth.用于预防恒牙龋齿的窝沟封闭剂。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Mar 28(3):CD001830. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub4.
3
Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents.窝沟封闭剂与氟化物漆预防儿童和青少年恒牙龋齿的比较
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 18;2016(1):CD003067. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003067.pub4.
4
Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth.用于预防恒牙龋齿的窝沟封闭剂。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 31;7(7):CD001830. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub5.
5
Sealants for preventing dental caries in primary teeth.窝沟封闭剂预防儿童乳牙龋齿。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 11;2(2):CD012981. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012981.pub2.
6
Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents.用于预防儿童和青少年恒牙龋齿的窝沟封闭剂。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(3):CD001830. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub2.
7
Prescription of Controlled Substances: Benefits and Risks管制药品的处方:益处与风险
8
WITHDRAWN: Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition.撤回:用于治疗乳牙龋齿的牙科填充物。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 17;10(10):CD004483. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004483.pub3.
9
Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition.用于治疗乳牙龋齿的补牙材料。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15(2):CD004483. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004483.pub2.
10
Comparison of retention rates of silver nanoparticles-based fissure sealant and conventional resin-based sealant: a one-year randomized clinical trial.基于银纳米颗粒的窝沟封闭剂与传统树脂基封闭剂保留率的比较:一项为期一年的随机临床试验。
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2025 Mar 5. doi: 10.1007/s40368-025-01014-9.

本文引用的文献

1
SPIRIT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.《SPIRIT 2025声明:随机试验方案的更新指南》
PLoS Med. 2025 Apr 28;22(4):e1004589. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004589. eCollection 2025 Apr.
2
CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomized trials.CONSORT 2025声明:报告随机试验的更新指南
Nat Med. 2025 Apr 15. doi: 10.1038/s41591-025-03635-5.
3
Comparative evaluation of pit & fissure sealant retention using cotton roll & rubber dam isolation techniques - a systematic review & meta-analysis.
使用棉卷和橡皮障隔离技术对窝沟封闭剂保留率的比较评估——一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Evid Based Dent. 2025 Jun;26(2):112. doi: 10.1038/s41432-024-01092-6. Epub 2024 Dec 2.
4
Clinical performance of sealants under different humidity control conditions: a split-mouth 1-year randomized trial.不同湿度控制条件下封闭剂的临床性能:一项为期 1 年的随机分口研究。
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2023 Dec;24(6):769-777. doi: 10.1007/s40368-023-00843-w. Epub 2023 Sep 25.
5
A literature review of clinical efficiency, patient satisfaction, and future preference of Isolite and DryShield dental isolation systems among pediatric patients.一项关于 Isolite 和 DryShield 牙科隔离系统在儿科患者中的临床效率、患者满意度和未来偏好的文献综述。
J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023 Jul;47(4):1-8. doi: 10.22514/jocpd.2023.029. Epub 2023 Jul 3.
6
Evaluation of fissure sealant retention rates using Isolite in comparison with rubber dam and cotton roll isolation techniques: A randomized clinical trial.使用Isolite与橡皮障和棉卷隔离技术相比评估窝沟封闭剂保留率:一项随机临床试验。
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2023 Jan;33(1):12-19. doi: 10.1111/ipd.13008. Epub 2022 May 22.
7
Effectiveness of fissure sealants on initial caries lesions (ICDAS 1-3) of permanent molars: A 4-year follow-up.窝沟封闭剂对恒磨牙早期龋损(ICDAS 1-3)的疗效:4 年随访。
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2021 Sep;22(3):180-188. doi: 10.23804/ejpd.2021.22.03.2.
8
Behavior of Children during Dental Care with Rubber Dam Isolation: A Randomized Controlled Study.使用橡皮障隔离进行口腔治疗时儿童的行为表现:一项随机对照研究。
Dent J (Basel). 2021 Aug 4;9(8):89. doi: 10.3390/dj9080089.
9
Comparison of Fissure Sealant Chair Time and Patients' Preference Using Three Different Isolation Techniques.使用三种不同隔离技术对窝沟封闭剂椅旁操作时间和患者偏好的比较。
Children (Basel). 2021 May 25;8(6):444. doi: 10.3390/children8060444.
10
The efficacy of dental sealant used with bonding agent on occlusal caries (ICDAS 2-4): A 24-month randomized clinical trial.粘结剂辅助牙面封闭剂预防窝沟龋的疗效(ICDAS 2-4):一项为期 24 个月的随机临床试验。
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2021 Nov;31(6):760-766. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12758. Epub 2021 Jan 25.