当前位置: X-MOL 学术Dent. Mater. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Meta-analysis of the longevity of commonly used pit and fissure sealant materials.
Dental Materials ( IF 4.6 ) Pub Date : 2020-02-12 , DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.02.001
Jan Kühnisch 1 , Ahmed Bedir 2 , Yi-Fang Lo 1 , Andreas Kessler 1 , Toni Lang 1 , Ulrich Mansmann 3 , Roswitha Heinrich-Weltzien 4 , Reinhard Hickel 1
Affiliation  

OBJECTIVE This systematic literature review and meta-analysis compared the clinical retention of primed or adhesively bonded sealants to that of conventional sealant materials. METHODS A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases identified 3707 abstracts published prior to 12/31/2017, of which 335 clinical publications were analysed in detail. A total of 67 studies included information about sealant retention after 24, 36, or 60 months of follow-up. A meta-analysis using a random effects model was conducted to calculate the pooled estimate of the retention rates for the five groups of sealants. Subgroup moderator analysis was performed to compare the pooled retention rate estimate (RRE) of primed sealants against those of the other groups. RESULTS Primed sealants had a 2-year pooled RRE of 43.2% (95% CI: 30.5-55.8), which was significantly inferior to those of auto-polymerizing (80.8%, 95% CI: 72.2-89) and light-polymerizing sealants (68.4%, 95% CI: 60.2-76.7). Fluoride-releasing and light-polymerizing sealants had the highest 3-year pooled RREs (86.4%, 95% CI: 73.4-99.3 and 83.1%, 95% CI: 75.6-90.7, respectively). SIGNIFICANE The results of this meta-analysis suggest that primed sealants cannot be fully recommended for clinical practice due to their moderate survival rates. Auto-polymerizing, light-polymerizing and fluoride-releasing sealants continue to be considered the reference standards for pit and fissure sealants. However, future generations and developments of primed sealant materials may change this position.

中文翻译:

常用窝沟封闭材料寿命Meta分析[J].

目的 本系统文献回顾和荟萃分析比较了涂底漆或粘合密封剂与传统密封剂材料的临床保留率。方法 检索 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 CENTRAL 数据库,确定 2017 年 12 月 31 日之前发表的 3707 篇摘要,其中详细分析了 335 篇临床出版物。共有 67 项研究包括了 24、36 或 60 个月随访后密封胶保留的信息。使用随机效应模型进行了荟萃分析,以计算五组密封剂的保留率的汇总估计值。进行了亚组调节分析,以将已涂底漆的密封剂的汇总保留率估计值 (RRE) 与其他组的进行比较。结果 Primed 密封剂的 2 年合并 RRE 为 43.2%(95% CI:30.5-55.8),显着低于自聚合(80.8%,95% CI:72.2-89)和光聚合密封胶(68.4%,95% CI:60.2-76.7)。氟化物释放和光聚合密封剂的 3 年汇总 RRE 最高(分别为 86.4%、95% CI:73.4-99.3 和 83.1%、95% CI:75.6-90.7)。意义 这项荟萃分析的结果表明,由于其适中的存活率,不能完全推荐用于临床实践的底漆密封剂。自聚合、光聚合和氟化物释放密封剂继续被认为是凹坑和裂缝密封剂的参考标准。然而,未来几代和底漆密封材料的发展可能会改变这一立场。氟化物释放和光聚合密封剂的 3 年汇总 RRE 最高(分别为 86.4%、95% CI:73.4-99.3 和 83.1%、95% CI:75.6-90.7)。意义 这项荟萃分析的结果表明,由于其适中的存活率,不能完全推荐用于临床实践的底漆密封剂。自聚合、光聚合和氟化物释放密封剂继续被认为是凹坑和裂缝密封剂的参考标准。然而,未来几代和底漆密封材料的发展可能会改变这一立场。氟化物释放和光聚合密封剂的 3 年汇总 RRE 最高(分别为 86.4%、95% CI:73.4-99.3 和 83.1%、95% CI:75.6-90.7)。意义 这项荟萃分析的结果表明,由于其适中的存活率,不能完全推荐用于临床实践的底漆密封剂。自聚合、光聚合和氟化物释放密封剂继续被认为是凹坑和裂缝密封剂的参考标准。然而,未来几代和底漆密封材料的发展可能会改变这一立场。意义 这项荟萃分析的结果表明,由于其适中的存活率,不能完全推荐用于临床实践的底漆密封剂。自聚合、光聚合和氟化物释放密封剂继续被认为是凹坑和裂缝密封剂的参考标准。然而,未来几代和底漆密封材料的发展可能会改变这一立场。意义 这项荟萃分析的结果表明,由于其适中的存活率,不能完全推荐用于临床实践的底漆密封剂。自聚合、光聚合和氟化物释放密封剂继续被认为是凹坑和裂缝密封剂的参考标准。然而,未来几代和底漆密封材料的发展可能会改变这一立场。
更新日期:2020-02-12
down
wechat
bug