Caries risk in formerly sealed teeth
Caries risk in formerly sealed teeth
复制标题
DOI：
10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0190
复制
发表时间：
2009-04-01
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Gooch, Barbara F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Griffin, Susan O.;Gray, Shellle Kolavic;Gooch, Barbara F.
背景作者检查了部分或完全失去密封剂的牙齿（以前密封的[FS]牙齿）相对于从未接受密封剂的牙齿（从未密封的[NS]牙齿）的风险。作者检索了5项关于密封剂有效性的综述中使用的研究人群，这些综述是在涉及树脂基密封剂的裂口设计研究中建立的，没有重新应用损失的密封剂。他们要求纳入的研究包含足够的数据来估计FS牙齿相对于NS牙齿的龋齿风险（相对风险[RR] = % FS发生龋齿）/% NS发生龋齿）及其95%置信区间（CI）。为了估计自密封剂放置以来每年的平均RR，他们使用了加权双变量模型，并使用I-2数量检验了异质性。放置后1年（4项研究，345个牙对）的加权平均RR为0.998（95%CI，0.817-1.220），4年（5项研究，1，423个牙对）的加权平均RR为0.936（95%CI，0.896-0.978）。完全或部分失去密封剂的牙齿并不比从未密封过的牙齿有更高的患龋风险。无法提供保留检查考试，以所有儿童参加学校密封剂计划，因为失去后续行动不应取消资格的儿童接受密封剂。
Background. The authors examined the risk of canes development in teeth with partially or fully lost sealant (formerly sealed [FS] teeth) relative to the risk in teeth that never have received sealants (never-sealed [NS] teeth).Methods. The authors searched the population of studies used in five reviews of sealant effectiveness as established in split-mouth design studies involving resin-based sealants with no reapplication of lost sealant. They required included studies to contain sufficient data to estimate the risk of caries in FS teeth relative to that in NS teeth (relative risk [RR] = % FS developing caries)/% NS developing caries) and its 95 percent confidence interval (CI). To estimate the mean RR by year since sealant placement, they used a weighted bivariate model and tested for heterogeneity using the quantity I-2.Results. The weighted mean RR was 0.998 (95 percent CI, 0.817-1.220), one year after placement (four studies, 345 tooth pairs) and 0.936 (95 per cent CI, 0.896-0.978) at four years (five studies, 1,423 tooth pairs).Conclusions. Teeth with fully or partially lost sealant were not at a higher risk of developing caries than were teeth that had never been sealed.Clinical Implications. Inability to provide a retention-check examination to all children participating in school sealant programs because of loss to follow-up should not disqualify a child from receiving sealants.