Comparative evaluation of retention and cariostatic effect of glass ionomer, hydrophobic & hydrophilic resin-based sealants: a systematic review and meta-analysis,Evidence-Based Dentistry

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Evid. Based Dent. › 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.)

Comparative evaluation of retention and cariostatic effect of glass ionomer, hydrophobic & hydrophilic resin-based sealants: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Evidence-Based Dentistry Pub Date : 2023-03-07 , DOI: 10.1038/s41432-023-00850-2
Vinamrata Kapoor ₁ , Adarsh Kumar ₁ , B C Manjunath ₁ , Vipul Yadav ₁ , Bhavna Sabbarwal ₁

Affiliation

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of hydrophilic resin-based versus hydrophobic resin-based and glass-ionomer pit and fissure sealants.

Methods

The review was registered with Joanna Briggs Institute and followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, Google Scholar, Virtual Health Library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 2009–2019 using appropriate keywords. We included randomized controlled trials and randomized split-mouth trials conducted among 6–13-year-old children. The quality of included trials was assessed using modified Jadad criteria and risk of bias using guidelines specified by Cochrane. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines were used to assess the overall quality of studies. We used the random-effects model for meta-analysis. Relative risk (RR) and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated & heterogeneity was tested using I² statistic.

Results

Six randomized clinical trials and five split-mouth trials met the inclusion criteria. The outlier augmenting the heterogeneity was omitted. Based on very-low to low-quality evidence, loss of hydrophilic resin-based sealants was less likely as compared to glass-ionomer fissure sealants (4 trials at 6 months; RR = 0.59; CI = 0.40–0.86), while it was similar or slightly lower than hydrophobic resin-based sealants (6 trials at 6 months; RR = 0.96; CI = 0.89–1.03); (6 trials at 12 months; RR = 0.79; CI = 0.70–0.89); (2 trials at 18 months; RR = 0.77; CI = 0.48–0.25).

Conclusion

This study revealed that retention of hydrophilic resin-based sealants is better than glass ionomer sealants but similar to hydrophobic resin-based sealants. However, higher-quality evidence is necessary to underpin the outcomes.

中文翻译：

玻璃离聚物、疏水性和亲水性树脂基密封剂的固位和防龋效果的比较评价：系统评价和荟萃分析

客观的

比较亲水性树脂基与疏水性树脂基和玻璃离聚物窝沟封闭剂的有效性。

方法

该评论已在 Joanna Briggs Institute 注册，并遵循 PRISMA（系统评论和元分析的首选报告项目）指南。使用适当的关键字搜索了 2009 年至 2019 年的 PubMed、谷歌学术搜索、虚拟健康图书馆和 Cochrane 对照试验中央登记册。我们纳入了在 6-13 岁儿童中进行的随机对照试验和随机分口试验。使用修改后的 Jadad 标准评估纳入试验的质量，并使用 Cochrane 指定的指南评估偏倚风险。GRADE（推荐评估、制定和评估分级）指南用于评估研究的整体质量。我们使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。计算相对风险 (RR) 和置信区间 (CI) &

结果

六项随机临床试验和五项分口试验符合纳入标准。省略了增加异质性的异常值。基于极低到低质量的证据，与玻璃离子窝沟封闭剂相比，亲水性树脂基封闭剂的损失可能性较小（4 次试验，6 个月；RR = 0.59；CI = 0.40-0.86），而它是与疏水性树脂基密封剂相似或略低（6 个月时进行 6 次试验；RR = 0.96；CI = 0.89–1.03）；（12 个月时进行 6 次试验；RR = 0.79；CI = 0.70–0.89）；（18 个月时进行 2 次试验；RR = 0.77；CI = 0.48–0.25）。