4.7 Article

3-Year Clinical Performance of a New Pit and Fissure Sealant

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11133741

关键词

dental caries; detection and diagnosis; prevention; pit and fissure sealant; retention rate; survival probability; split-mouth design; RCT; Kaplan-Meier statistics

资金

  1. Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This 3-year clinical trial compared the clinical survival of a Bis-GMA-free pit and fissure sealant (Helioseal F Plus) to a control material (Helioseal F). The results showed that the new sealant material was at least equivalent to the previous material in terms of survival and retention behavior.
The aim of this 3-year, randomized clinical trial (RCT) in split-mouth design was to explore the clinical survival of a Bis-GMA-free pit and fissure sealant (Helioseal F Plus) in comparison to a control material (Helioseal F). The initial population consisted of 92 adolescents. Follow-ups took place after one year (N = 85), two years (N = 82) and three years (N = 76) after application. At each examination, sealant retention and the presence of caries were recorded. The statistical analysis included the calculation of Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank tests and a Cox proportional hazard regression model. No adverse events were documented. The proportion of completely intact sealants and those with minimal loss was almost identical in both groups, at 84.3% (Helioseal F; 113/134) and 81.7% (Helioseal F Plus; 107/131) after three years of observation. The regression analysis revealed an operator dependency, but no significant differences were found between the materials, the study centers, the chosen isolation technique, patient age or sex. After 3 years, 91.7% and 100.0% of all molars were free of non-cavitated carious lesions or carious cavities, respectively. It can be concluded that the new fissure sealing material can be considered as at least equivalent in terms of survival and retention behavior compared to the predecessor material.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据