论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨不同窝沟表面处理方式和封闭材料应用于窝沟封闭的临床效果。方法对348例7~8岁第一恒磨牙均已萌出且无龋儿童,采取不同窝沟表面处理方式和封闭材料行窝沟封闭术。分别于半年、1年、2年后复查比较不同窝沟表面处理方式和封闭材料的保存率及防龋效果。结果 2年后复查窝沟釉质成形术和普通窝沟封闭术封闭效果差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);同种表面处理情况下,流动树脂和普通封闭剂两种材料封闭效果差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);窝沟表面处理和封闭材料对窝沟封闭效果影响差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论窝沟表面处理方式比封闭材料对窝沟封闭效果影响更显著,EST流动树脂封闭效果最理想;保存率和防龋效果呈正相关。
Objective To investigate the clinical effect of different pit and fissure surface treatment methods and sealing materials applied to pit and fissure sealant. Methods 348 cases of the first permanent molars aged 7 to 8 years were erupted and caries-free children, to take a different pit fissure surface treatment and sealing material pit and fissure sealant. Respectively in six months, one year, two years later to review the different pit and fissure surface treatment methods and the closure material preservation rate and anti-caries effect. Results Two years later, the sealing effect of fissure enameloplasty and ordinary fissure sealant was significantly different (P <0.05). In the same kind of surface treatment, there was statistical difference between the two kinds of sealing material of fluent resin and ordinary sealant (P <0.05). There was significant difference in the effect of pit fissure surface treatment and sealant on pit and fissure sealant (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: The fissure surface treatment method has more significant effect on the pit and fissure sealant effect than the sealant material. The sealing effect of EST resin is the best. The preservation rate is positively correlated with the anticaries effect.