应用一步法自酸蚀黏结系统进行窝沟封闭的效果评价

上海口腔医学 ›› 2016, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (3): 317-321.

应用一步法自酸蚀黏结系统进行窝沟封闭的效果评价

苏红如, 徐培成, 钱文昊

上海市徐汇区牙病防治所口腔内科,上海 200032

收稿日期:2015-10-15 修回日期:2015-12-28 出版日期:2016-06-25 发布日期:2016-07-22
通讯作者: 徐培成,E-mail: xpc.mail@163.com E-mail:suhongru@hotmail.com
作者简介:苏红如（1977-）,女,硕士,主治医师
基金资助:
徐汇区医学科研课题(SHXH201218)

Evaluation of the effect of one-step self etching adhesives applied in pit and fissure sealing

SU Hong-ru, XU Pei-cheng, QIAN Wen-hao

Department of Oral Medicine, Shanghai Xuhui Dental Diseases Prevention and Cure Center. Shanghai 200032, China

Received:2015-10-15 Revised:2015-12-28 Online:2016-06-25 Published:2016-07-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的观察3 种一步法自酸蚀黏结系统用于窝沟封闭术后封闭剂的保留率和龋齿预防情况,探讨其在学校龋病防治中应用的可行性。方法选择360例7~9岁高危患龋儿童已经完全萌出的720颗下颌第一磨牙,采用自身半口对照方法,随机选择一侧作为实验组,分为A1（Beautibond自酸蚀黏结）、B1(Adper Easy One自酸蚀黏结)、C1(iBond SE自酸蚀黏结);对侧牙为对照组,分为A2、B2、C2组,应用传统磷酸酸蚀法。定期复查封闭剂保留情况和患龋情况。采用SPSS19.0 软件包对数据进行χ2检验。结果 3、6个月时,A1和A2,B1和B2,C1和C2的窝沟封闭剂保留率无显著差异（P>0.05）;12个月时,A1和B1封闭剂保留率均显著低于相应的A2和B2组（P<0.05）,C1和C2组无显著差异（P>0.05）;24个月时,A1、B1和C1封闭剂保留率均显著低于相应的A2、B2和C2组（P<0.05）;不同复查时间A1和A2、B1和B2、C1和C2患龋率差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 3 种一步法自酸蚀黏结的窝沟封闭术临床防龋效果与磷酸酸蚀组相似, 推荐将一步法自酸蚀黏结系统用于窝沟封闭术,以加快学校口腔公共卫生工作;但其远期保留率低于磷酸酸蚀法,需加强观察。

关键词: 窝沟封闭术, 自酸蚀黏结, 磷酸酸蚀, 封闭剂保留率

Abstract: PURPOSE: To observe the effect of three one-step self etching adhesive systems used in fit and fissure sealant and explore the feasibility of application in caries prevention in school. METHODS: Seven hundred and twenty completely erupted mandibular first molars in 360 children aged 7 to 9 years old were chosen. The split-mouth design was used to select one side as the experimental group, divided into A1(Easy One Adper), B1(Adper Easy One), and C1(iBond SE).The contra lateral teeth served as A2,B2 and C2 groups (phosphoric acid). The retention and caries status were regularly reviewed .The clinical effect of the two groups was compared using SPSS19.0 software package for Chi - square test. RESULTS: At 3 and 6 months, pit and fissure sealant retention rate in A1 and A2, B1 and B2,C1 and C2 group had no significant difference. At 12 months, sealant retention in A1 and B1 group was significantly lower than A2 and B2 group (P<0.05). No significant difference was found between C1 and C2 groups (P>0.05). At 24 months, sealant retention rate in A1, B1 and C1 group was significantly lower than A2, B2 and C2 group (P<0.05). The caries rate in A1and A2, B1 and B2, C1 and C2 group had no significant difference during different follow-up time (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical anticariogenic effect of three kinds of one-step etching adhesives and phosphoric acid etching sealant was similar .One-step self etching adhesive system was recommended for pit and fissure sealant to improve the students' oral health. The long-term retention rate of one-step self etching adhesive system was lower than the phosphoric acid method to long term observation is needed.

Key words: Pit and fissure sealant, Self-etching adhesive, Phosphoric acid, Retention rate

中图分类号:

R788.1

苏红如, 徐培成, 钱文昊. 应用一步法自酸蚀黏结系统进行窝沟封闭的效果评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2016, 25(3): 317-321.

SU Hong-ru, XU Pei-cheng, QIAN Wen-hao. Evaluation of the effect of one-step self etching adhesives applied in pit and fissure sealing[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2016, 25(3): 317-321.

参考文献

[1] Kwon HB, Park KT. SEM and microleakage evaluation of 3 flowable composites as sealants without using bonding agents [J]. Pediatr Dent, 2006, 28(1): 48-53.
[2] Leskinen K, Salo S, Suni J, et al. Comparison of dental health in sealed and non-sealed first permanent molars: 7 years follow-up in practice-based dentistry [J]. J Dent, 2008, 36(1): 27-32.
[3] Beauchamp J, Caufield PW, Carall J, et al. Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit and fissure sealants [J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2008, 139(3): 257-268.
[4] Ansari G, Oloomi K, Eslami B. Microleakage assessment of pit and fissure sealant with and without the use of pumice prophylaxis [J]. Int J Paediatr Dent, 2004, 14(4): 272-278.
[5] Duangthip D, Lussi A. Effects of app1ication techniques and fissure types on the in vitro performance of two fissure sealants [J]. Am J Dent, 2004, 17(2): 137-142.
[6] Seemann R, Bizhang M, Kluck I, et al. A novel in vitro microbial-based model for studying caries formation development and initial testing [J]. Caries Res, 2005, 39(3): 185-190.
[7] WHO. Oral Health Surveys [M]. 4th Ed. Geneva: WHO, 1997.
[8] Perdigão J, Carmo AR, Anauate-Neto C, et al. Clinical performance of a self etching adhesive at 18 months [J]. Am J Dent, 2005, 18(2): 135-140.
[9] Marquezan M, da Silveira BL, Burnett LH Jr, et al. Microtensile bond strength of contemporary adhesives to primary enamel and dentin [J]. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 2008, 32(2): 127-132.
[10] Perdigão J, Sezinando A, Gomes G. In vitro sealing potential of a self-adhesive pit and fissure [J]. Quintessence Int, 2011, 42(5): e65-73.
[11] Venker DJ, Kuthy RA, Qian F, et al. Twelve-month sealant retention in a school-based program using self-etching primer/adhesive [J]. J Public Health Dent, 2004, 64(4): 191-197.
[12] Hannig M, Gräfe A, Atalay S, et al. Microleakage and SEM evaluationof fissure sealants by use of self-etching priming agents [J]. J Dent, 2004, 32(1): 75-81.
[13] 许全林, 季佩红. 不同酸蚀方法对3M-Z350纳米流动树脂年轻恒牙窝沟封闭效果[J].上海口腔医学,2012,21(5): 563-565.
[14] 刘茜, 周红艳, 曹灵, 等. 不同窝沟处理及酸蚀方式封闭剂界面的扫描电镜观察[J]. 口腔生物医学, 2011, 2(2): 85-88.
[15] 姚江江,杨杭玲.窝沟封闭中加用自酸蚀黏结剂对临床疗效的影响[J].口腔医学研究, 2010, 26(6): 845-846.
[16] 黄诺蓓, 刘丽君, 陈志斌, 等. 窝沟封闭术酸蚀方法研究 [J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2013, 6(10): 621-623.
[17] 凌征宇, 凌均棨, 吕长海, 不同自酸蚀黏结系统对窝沟封闭剂微渗漏影响的实验研究[J/CD].中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2009, 3(3): 5-9.