Kornkrasunk W, Manmontri C, Chompu-Inwai P, Nirunsittirat A, Tangtrakooljaroen W, Thiangjai B, Boonphirom P, Arjitpunyo S, Chaipattanawan N
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.
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2025 Sep 15. doi: 10.1007/s40368-025-01111-9.
To compare sealant retention, patient satisfaction, and operator preference between EasyPrep and cotton roll isolation.
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.
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%).
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.
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。
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。
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%)。
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。