Abstract
目的
评价采用酸蚀技术对乳牙玻璃离子封闭的效果。
方法
选择3~4岁幼儿第二乳磨牙无龋者共100名,采用自身半口对照方法,以左侧上下颌第二乳磨牙分为A组,右侧上下颌第二乳磨牙为B组,每组200颗牙。两组均采用Ketac® Molar Easymix玻璃离子和非创伤性充填指压技术进行窝沟封闭,其中A组采用酸蚀技术(35%磷酸酸蚀40 s)进行封闭,B组不作酸蚀处理。观察12个月后两组封闭剂保留情况和第二乳磨牙患龋情况。
结果
12个月后随访到幼儿86人,每组172颗牙,共344颗牙。A组封闭剂的完全保留率、部分脱落率和完全脱落率分别为83.14%、9.88%和6.98%,B组分别为62.79%、20.35%和16.86%,经统计学处理,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。A、B组患龋率别为8.14%和16.86%,龋均为0.08±0.31和1.17±0.46,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
结论
采用酸蚀技术,窝沟封闭剂的完全保留率高而脱落率低,固位效果提高,防龋效果增强。该技术操作简单,无需其他固化设备,适宜在幼儿乳牙群体防龋中使用。
Keywords: 乳牙, 窝沟封闭, 保留率, 玻璃离子, 酸蚀
Abstract
Objective
This work aimed to compare the effect of retention and preventive caries of the pit and fissure sealant on primary teeth by using glass ionomer cements (GIC) with or without acid etching technique.
Methods
In this clinical trail, 100 children aged 3–4 years old with a split-mouth design were equally divided into two groups (the left second upper and lower mandibular primary molars were present in group A, and the right second upper and lower mandibular primary molars were present in group B; each group had 200 molars). All participants were placed in pit and fissure sealant with Ketac® Molar Easymix and seated with atraumatic restorative treatmen press-finger technique in the two groups. Group A was subjected to acid etching (40 s, 35% H3PO4), while group B were not subjected to acid etching. GIC preservation rate, caries rate, and decayed teeth (dt) index were observed after 12 months.
Results
After a 12-month follow-up period, the completely lost, partially losing, and losing rates of GIC in 86 children (172 second primary molars) were 83.14%, 9.88%, 6.98% in group A and 62.79%, 20.35%, and 16.86% in group B, respectively. The differences between the two groups were insignificant (P<0.05). The caries rates of groups A and B were 8.14% and 16.86%, and their dt indices were 0.08±0.31 and 1.17±0.46, respectively, thereby indicating significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05).
Conclusion
Using acid etching technology, the retention rate of the pit and fissure sealant increased, while its losing rate decreased. The retention effect of the GIC was improved, and the dental caries prevention effect was enhanced. Sealant processing was a self-curing procedure that sets without the external energy. Hence, this procedure is suitable for the preventive caries of primary teeth in children.
Keywords: primary teeth, pit and fissure sealant, retention rate, glass ionomer cement, acid etching
幼儿乳牙龋的患病率居高不下,导致早期儿童龋成为严重的公共卫生问题[1]。Jiang等[2]通过口腔健康调查发现,2~5岁幼儿乳牙患龋率为53.3%,龋均为2.21。根据第四次全国口腔健康流行病学调查报告[3]可知,江苏省5岁组幼儿乳牙患龋率为71.4%,龋均为4.05。这些结果说明,幼儿患龋情况不容乐观,应重点针对这一高危人群进行防治[4]。另一项针对南京市幼儿乳牙龋齿的调查[5]显示,3岁组患龋率为32.03%,龋均为1.32,5岁组患龋率达67.44%,龋均为3.07,呈现出随着年龄增长而增高的趋势。
窝沟封闭是口腔卫生保健预防策略中重要的辅助手段。该技术通过覆盖并封闭窝沟,阻隔细菌进入从而起到减少面窝沟龋齿的发生和发展的作用,因此选择适合于幼儿乳牙窝沟封闭术的材料与治疗方法是非常必要的。
1. 材料和方法
1.1. 研究对象的选择
根据自愿原则选择2015年5—8月在南京大学医学院附属口腔医院和南京医科大学附属妇产医院儿童牙科做口腔健康检查的3~4岁幼儿为研究对象,每医院各50人,合计100人,其中男性54人,女性46人。实验分组采用自身半口对照设计,患儿的左侧上、下颌第二乳磨牙为A组,右侧上、下颌第二乳磨牙为B组,每组各200颗第二乳磨牙。
纳入标准:1)第二乳磨牙面窝沟较深,无龋或可疑龋(窝沟有黑或褐色染色,但探针不可探入);2)无釉质发育不全;3)患儿家长知情同意,且能按时复查。排除标准:1)第二乳磨牙
面窝沟较浅;2)牙冠未完全萌出;3)口内有多个龋坏牙;4)有全身性系统疾病;5)对口腔治疗恐惧不能配合;6)已经采用其他防龋措施者。
1.2. 方法
放置封闭剂前,两组患牙均采用小毛刷低速清洁牙面。清洁后口内用棉卷隔湿,A组采用35%磷酸酸蚀牙面40 s,冲洗5~10 s以去除酸蚀剂,气枪吹干牙面,同时由助手用取粉小勺按一平勺粉加一滴液的粉液比例调拌Ketac® Molar Easymix玻璃离子(3M ESPE公司,美国),充分混合调拌好后立即用探针置于面并引导布满至全部窝沟,静置5~10 s后采取非创伤性充填(atraumatic restorative treatment,ART)指压技术[6]进行窝沟封闭充填。具体方法如下:术者用戴手套的食指涂上凡士林将封闭材料压入窝沟,先轻轻向颊舌,再向近远中压下,使封闭材料压入所有点隙、裂沟深处,5~10 s后从一侧移开手指,以免将材料带出,用探针检查是否完全覆盖窝沟或松动脱落,如有及时重新封闭。封闭完成后将多余材料用刮匙清除干净,再次涂上凡士林,1 h后方可进食。
B组不采用酸蚀技术,牙面清洁,隔湿,在放置封闭材料前对牙面作预处理,用棉球蘸玻璃离子液体,涂擦处理窝沟表面,用湿棉球擦干,避免过度干燥,然后放置封闭材料,操作与A组相同,用ART指压技术进行充填,封闭后进行同样的检查处理。
因为两组均为低龄幼儿,治疗配合欠佳,存在口腔开口度较小、隔湿不佳等因素,考虑到乳磨牙的解剖形态与恒磨牙相比颊、腭(舌)窝沟较浅,故均只封闭第二乳磨牙面窝沟。所有临床操作均由一名医生和一位助手配合完成。
1.3. 观察指标
12个月后复查两组封闭剂保留情况。1)完全保留:所有窝沟均有封闭剂覆盖;2)部分脱落:一条窝沟封闭剂完全脱落或一条以上窝沟封闭剂部分脱落;3)完全脱落:牙面封闭剂完全脱落,点隙窝沟暴露。
采用世界卫生组织《口腔健康调查基本方法》第4版龋病调查标准[7]检测第二乳磨牙的患龋情况,比较A、B组患龋率和龋均,对窝沟封闭的防龋效果进行评价。
1.4. 统计学分析
数据分析采用SPSS 21统计学软件进行处理,计量资料组间比较采用t检验,计数资料采用卡方检验,检验水准为双侧ɑ=0.05。
2. 结果
2.1. 两组封闭剂保留率情况
治疗12个月后共随访到86人,每组172颗第二乳磨牙,失防率为14%。两组封闭剂保留见表1:A组完全保留率明显高于B组,部分脱落率和完全脱落率明显低于B组。经卡方检验,两组封闭剂的保留率有明显差异(χ2 =18.16,P=0.000)。
表 1. 2组乳磨牙窝沟封闭术12个月后的保留情况.
Tab 1 The retention rate in the two groups with pit and fissure sealant after 12 months
组别 | 复查牙数 | 完全保留 | 部分保留 | 完全脱落 |
牙数/% | 牙数/% | 牙数/% | ||
A | 172 | 143/83.14 | 17/9.88 | 12/6.98 |
B | 172 | 108/62.79 | 35/20.35 | 29/16.86 |
2.2. 两组乳磨牙患龋情况
12个月后两组乳磨牙的患龋率和龋均见表2,A组患龋率和龋均都明显低于B组,差异有统计学意义(患龋率:χ2=4.07,P=0.044;龋均:t=2.05,P=0.041)。
表 2. 2组乳磨牙12个月后的患龋情况.
Tab 2 Caries prevanlence in the two groups with pit and fissure sealent after 12 months
组别 | 复查牙数 | 患龋牙数 | 患龋率/% | 龋均 |
A | 172 | 14 | 8.14 | 0.08±0.31 |
B | 172 | 29 | 16.86 | 1.17±0.46 |
3. 讨论
由于牙面窝沟狭窄,解剖形态各异,食物残渣和细菌等进入存留后,难以清洁,故易导致龋齿发生。Gawali等[8]报道,儿童第二乳磨牙最易发生窝沟龋齿。窝沟封闭技术是口腔卫生保健预防策略中的一种重要的辅助手段,窝沟封闭剂可以覆盖并封闭窝沟,阻隔细菌进入,起到减少牙
面窝沟龋发生和发展的作用。因此,提高窝沟封闭剂在窝沟部位的长期保留率是提高防龋效果的重要因素。
高黏度玻璃离子具有较好的预防牙本质龋坏的效果。这类封闭剂的保留率与传统树脂基质封闭剂相比较无明显差异[9],而且是自凝材料,不需要专用光固化设备,因此成本低,临床操作简便。Ketac® Molar Easymix是高黏性的玻璃离子材料,通过材料中的羟基磷酸根离子与牙体组织中的磷酸根离子的交换实现化学性结合。因为釉质较牙本质含有更多的磷酸根,所以对釉质有更强的黏结力。尽管如此,由于牙齿的持续咀嚼作用,材料仍易脱落。
酸蚀处理首先可以清除釉质表面菌斑和有机物质,然后可使釉质表面粗糙,增加了与封闭材料的面积,形成平均5.86~10.14 µm的微孔层[10],玻璃离子固化前渗透进入微孔,同时采用ART指压技术加强了渗透,在微孔凝固后形成了微机械固位。化学固位和机械固位产生的协同效果是提高窝沟封闭材料保留率的重要因素。本研究结果显示,采用酸蚀法的A组在12个月后的封闭剂完全保留率显著高于未采用酸蚀法的B组,差异有统计学意义(P=0.000)。
本研究采用不同窝沟表面处理方法对窝沟封闭材料的保留率进行研究,结果发现,酸蚀法效果更佳。Kanellis等[11]比较了酸蚀法和空气磨蚀法对窝沟封闭剂保留率的影响,结果发现,12个月后酸蚀法的完全保留率明显高于空气磨蚀法,因此推荐使用酸蚀法处理窝沟。Pamir等[12]比较了Ketac® Molar玻璃离子对传统的酸蚀、冲洗两步酸蚀法和免冲洗的一步自酸蚀法处理牙面后的粘接强度,结果发现,两种酸蚀法之间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
本研究结果显示,A组患龋率和龋均明显低于B组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。玻璃离子中氟离子的缓慢释放有助于发挥其防龋作用,并且可以促进早期龋的再矿化[13]。变异链球菌是主要的致龋微生物[14]。Klai等[15]和Feroz等[16]的体外研究报告显示,GC Fuji Ⅰ和3M Ketac Molar两种玻璃离子材料能有效降低变异链球菌的菌落计数,可以抑制并杀灭变异链球菌,可见玻璃离子释放氟离子具有抑菌和釉质再矿化的双重作用。
本研究结果表明,采用酸蚀后加ART指压法进行玻璃离子乳牙窝沟封闭,封闭材料保留率明显提高,操作简单,无需特殊设备,适合并推荐在社区幼儿窝沟龋群体防治中应用。鉴于乳牙患龋率高,罹患人群广,应该进一步开展乳牙窝沟封闭材料的临床应用和实验研究,促进和提高乳牙窝沟封闭项目的推广应用。
References
- 1.Dülgergil Ç, Dalli M, Hamidi M, et al. Early childhood caries update: a review of causes, diagnoses, and treatments[J] J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2013;4(1):29–38. doi: 10.4103/0976-9668.107257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Jiang YY. Prevalence of early childhood caries among 2- to 5-year-old preschoolers in kindergartens of weifang city, china: a cross-sectional study[J] Oral Health Prev Dent. 2017;15(1):89–97. doi: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a37718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.王 兴. 第四次全国口腔健康流行病学调查报告[M] 北京: 人民卫生出版社; 2018. [Google Scholar]; Wang X. The fourth national oral health epidemiological survey report[M] Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House; 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 4.仇 颖莹, 沈 红, 刘 怡然, et al. 江苏省5岁、12岁青少年儿童龋病流行现状及影响因素分析[J] 口腔医学. 2018;38(4):352–357. [Google Scholar]; Qiu YY, Shen H, Liu YR, et al. An epidemiological investigation of caries status and associated factors in 5- and 12-year-old children in Jiangsu province[J] Stomatology. 2018;38(4):352–357. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Wu J, Zhu W. The survey on deciduous dental caries for young children in Nanjing[J] Int J Pediatric Denty. 2015;25(suppl 1):83. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Holmgren CJ, Lo EC, Hu D. Glass ionomer ART sealants in Chinese school children-6-year results[J] J Dent. 2013;41(9):764–770. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.06.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.World Health Organization. Oral health surveys basic method[M]. 4th ed. Vol. 1997. Geneva: World Health Organization; pp. 40–45. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gawali PN, Chaugule VB, Panse AM. Comparison of microleakage and penetration depth between hydrophilic and hydrophobic sealants in primary second molar[J] Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;9(4):291–295. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Frencken JE. Atraumatic restorative treatment and minimal intervention dentistry[J] Br Dent J. 2017;223(3):183–189. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Prabhakar AR, Murthy SA, Sugandhan S. Comparative evaluation of the length of resin tags, viscosity and microleakage of pit and fissure sealants—an in vitro scanning electron microscope study[J] Contemp Clin Dent. 2011;2(4):324–330. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.91797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kanellis MJ, Warren JJ, Levy SM. A comparison of sealant placement techniques and 12-month retention rates[J] J Public Health Dent. 2000;60(1):53–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2000.tb03293.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Pamir T, Sen BH, Evcin O. Effects of etching and adhesive applications on the bond strength between composite resin and glass-ionomer cements[J] J Appl Oral Sci. 2012;20(6):636–642. doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572012000600008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials: fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation[J] Dent Mater. 2007;23(3):343–362. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Nurelhuda NM, Al-Haroni M, Trovik TA, et al. Caries experience and quantification of Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sobrinus in saliva of Sudanese schoolchildren[J] Caries Res. 2010;44(4):402–407. doi: 10.1159/000316664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Klai S, Altenburger M, Spitzmüller B, et al. Antimicrobial effects of dental luting glass ionomer cements on Streptococcus mutans[J] Sci World J. 2014:807086. doi: 10.1155/2014/807086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Feroz S, Bhoyar A, Khan S. Comparative evaluation of antibacterial effect of dental luting cements on Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus: an in vitro study[J] J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(12):973–977. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]