论文部分内容阅读
目的:分别利用玻璃离子和树脂封闭剂对乳磨牙进行窝沟封闭,对封闭剂的完好保留率和防龋效果进行比较。方法:在某一所幼儿园内挑选50例3岁的幼儿进行窝沟封闭治疗,在随后的追访过程中有3例失访。实验采用同颌对侧同名牙进行对照的方法,一共对188颗乳磨牙进行了窝沟封闭治疗。其中144个牙面采用树脂封闭,142个牙面采用玻璃离子封闭。分别在治疗后1周、3个月和6个月对这286个牙面进行效果评价。结果:治疗后1周、3个月和6个月,树脂封闭剂的完好保留率分别是100.0%、98.9%、93.6%,而玻璃离子封闭剂分别为98.9%、59.6%、50.0%。玻璃离子封闭的牙面在治疗后1周、3个月和6个月的龋齿发生率分别为0、7.9%、9.8%,而树脂封闭的牙面无龋齿发生。结论:在治疗后3个月和6个月时,玻璃离子封闭剂与树脂封闭剂相比,其完好保留率和龋齿发生率之间的差异具有统计学意义(P<0.001)。提示对乳磨牙进行窝沟封闭治疗,树脂封闭剂的完好保留率比玻璃离子封闭剂要高,而玻璃离子封闭剂脱落后的牙齿患龋率比树脂封闭要高。
OBJECTIVE: To separate the pit and fissure of the deciduous molars using glass ionomer and resin sealant respectively, and to compare the intact retention rate of the sealant with the anticaries effect. Methods: 50 cases of 3-year-old children were selected in a kindergarten for pit and fissure sealant treatment, and 3 cases were lost during the subsequent follow-up. Experiments using the same name with the contralateral maxillary on the opposite side of the control method, a total of 188 molars for pit and fissure closed treatment. 144 of them were sealed with resin and 142 were sealed with glass ions. The 286 teeth were evaluated for effect at 1 week, 3 months and 6 months after treatment. Results: The intact rates of resin sealants were 100.0%, 98.9% and 93.6% respectively at 1 week, 3 months and 6 months after treatment, while the glass ionomer sealants were 98.9%, 59.6% and 50.0% respectively. The incidence of dental caries at 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment with glass ionomer was 0, 7.9% and 9.8%, respectively, while the resin-encapsulated dental caries without caries occurred. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 months and 6 months after treatment, the difference between the intact retention rate of glass ionomer sealants and the incidence of dental caries was statistically significant (P <0.001). Prompted the molars closed sealant treatment, resin sealant intact retention rate is higher than the glass ionomer sealant, and the glass ionomer sealant shed teeth caries rate is higher than the resin sealant.