摘要
目的比较窝沟釉质成形封闭术(EST)与普通窝沟封闭术(CST)防治龋齿的临床疗效。方法选择126例患儿的左下颌第一恒磨牙进行EST(EST组),右下颌第一恒磨牙进行CST(CST组),术后1、2、3年复查,对比观察两组龋病发生和封闭剂保留情况。结果 126例患者获得3年以上随访。EST组1、2、3年的龋病发生率分别为:0.73%、2.38%、3.97%;CST组1、2、3年的龋病发生率分别为:1.59%、3.97%、8.73%。EST组1、2、3年的封闭剂保存率分别为:94.4%、91.3%、86.5%;,CST组1、2、3年的封闭剂保存率分别为:91.3%、81.7%、65.1%;二组差异有统计学意义(p<0.05)。结论 EST在降低龋病的发病率及提高封闭剂的保存率方面均优于CST,推荐在有条件的情况下,应尽可能采用EST。
Objective To compare enameloplasty sealant technique （EST） versus conventional sealant technique （CST） for caries prevention. Methods 126 cases of the first permanent molars in the mandibula were sealed by EST and CST. The preservation rate of the sealant was produced after a follow - up of 3 years. Results 126 patients for more than 3 years of follow - up. The incidence of caries EST group were： 0. 73%, 2. 38%, 3.97% ; the CST group caries were： 1.59%, 3.97% and 8.73%, respectively. The preservation rate of sealers EST group for three years, respectively： 94. 4%, 91.3%, 86. 5% ; preservation rate of sealers CST group three years are as follows： 91.3%, 81.7%, 65.1% ; second group difference was statistically significant （p 〈 O. 05 ）. Conclusion EST is superior in reducing the incidence of dental caries and improve the preservation rate of sealers CST, recommended should be used whenever possible in the case of conditional EST.
出处
《现代医院》
2013年第7期52-53,共2页
Modern Hospitals
关键词
窝沟釉质成形封闭术
普通窝沟封闭术
龋齿
疗效
Enameloplasty sealant technique, Conventional sealant technique, Caries, Efiqcacy
