首页> 外文期刊>Scientific reports. >Comparison between Fissure Sealant and Fluoride Varnish on Caries Prevention for First Permanent Molars: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
【24h】

Comparison between Fissure Sealant and Fluoride Varnish on Caries Prevention for First Permanent Molars: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

机译:裂隙密封胶与氟化物粘性粘性第一永久性臼齿之间的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The high prevalence and heavy socio-economic burden for caries of first permanent molars (FPMs) make the prevention of this disease a major public health goal. Current guidelines recommend a preference of fissure sealant (FS) over fluoride varnish (FV) based on two recent systematic reviews. However, evidences of these two studies are weak because of scarce data and some limitations. Besides, an up-to-date large scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) reported commensurate effectiveness of these two techniques. Thus, in order to more accurately compare the clinical efficacy between FS and FV on caries prevention for FPMs, we carried out this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 8 RCTs involving 3289 participants and 6878 FPMs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis for the first time showed that there was no statistical difference on caries incidence or occlusal DMFS increment between sealant group and fluoride varnish group at 2~3 years’ follow-up. In that sense, biannual applications of FV or FS may be equally effective on caries prevention for FPMs. These results do not support routine recommendation of FS over FV, thus shedding light on current conceptions. Our findings endow clinicians with a window to reconsider the choice between these two techniques.
机译:第一次永久臼齿(FPMS)龋齿的高流行和沉重的社会经济负担使得预防这种疾病是一个主要的公共卫生目标。目前的指导方针建议基于最近的两个系统评论的氟化物清漆(FV)偏好裂隙密封胶(FS)。然而,由于稀缺数据和一些限制,这两项研究的证据是薄弱的。此外,最新的大规模随机对照试验(RCT)报告了这两种技术的效果。因此,为了更准确地比较FS和Fv之间的临床疗效,对FPMS的龋齿预防,我们进行了该系统审查和荟萃分析。共有8个RCT涉及3289名参与者和6878 FPMS符合纳入标准。我们的META分析首次表明,在2〜3年后的密封剂组和氟化物清漆组之间的龋病发病率或咬合DMFS增量没有统计学差异。从这种意义上讲,FV或FS的双向应用可能同样有效地对FPMS的龋齿预防。这些结果不支持FS上FS的日常建议,从而在当前概念上脱落。我们的调查结果赋予临床医生用窗口重新考虑这两种技术之间的选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号