ARE PIT AND FISSURE SEALANTS EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING AND ARRESTING OCCLUSAL CARIES IN PRIMARY AND PERMANENT TEETH? AN OVERVIEW OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

IF 4.1 4区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
{"title":"ARE PIT AND FISSURE SEALANTS EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING AND ARRESTING OCCLUSAL CARIES IN PRIMARY AND PERMANENT TEETH? AN OVERVIEW OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jebdp.2024.102010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To compile the evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) about the use of sealants for preventing and arresting pit and fissure occlusal caries in primary and permanent teeth.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><p>A search was performed in six databases and gray literature up to May 2023. Systematic reviews (SRs) that included randomized trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized clinical trials (n-RCTs) aiming to answer the PICO-based focused question “are pit and fissure sealants (I) more effective than other interventions, control or no treatment (C) in preventing and arresting occlusal caries (O) in primary and permanent teeth (P)?”, were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2. The overlap between reviews was calculated (corrected covered, CCA).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among the 25 included SRs, 18 underwent meta-analysis. Eighteen SRs considered sealing enamel caries lesions, one considered sealing dentine caries, and six considered both. Seventeen SRs were devoted to preventive sealing (RCT only, <em>n =</em> 12; RCT and n-RCT, <em>n =</em> 5), while eight were devoted to prevention and arrest of dental caries (RCT only, <em>n =</em> 5; RCT and n-RCT, <em>n =</em> 3). Nine SRs showed positive results for the primary dentition, and the most frequent periods of follow-up were at least 6 (<em>n =</em> 5) and 12 months (<em>n =</em> 4). According to our meta-analysis, a significant association between resin-based sealants (RBS) and dental caries prevention was detected at 6 months (<em>n =</em> 1) and over longer follow-up periods (<em>n =</em> 4), and the DMFT and dmft indices decreased (<em>n =</em> 2). RBS was better than fluoride varnish at preventing dentine caries (<em>n =</em> 1). A lower caries incidence rate was observed in the resin-modified glass ionomer group at 6 months (<em>n =</em> 1). Overall, the sealants were superior (<em>n =</em> 11), similar (<em>n =</em> 21), or inferior (<em>n =</em> 1) to the other treatments. The AMSTAR-2 scores for studies on preventive sealing were critically low (<em>n =</em> 8), low (<em>n =</em> 6), moderate (<em>n =</em> 1) and high (<em>n =</em> 2) for studies on preventive sealing and critically low (<em>n =</em> 5), low (<em>n =</em> 2) and high (<em>n =</em> 1) for studies on the prevention and arrest of caries lesions. The overlap was low (CCA = 3%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This overview suggests that pit and fissure sealants are not inferior to other interventions in preventing and arresting dental caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48736,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice","volume":"24 3","pages":"Article 102010"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532338224000605","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To compile the evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) about the use of sealants for preventing and arresting pit and fissure occlusal caries in primary and permanent teeth.

Materials and Methods

A search was performed in six databases and gray literature up to May 2023. Systematic reviews (SRs) that included randomized trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized clinical trials (n-RCTs) aiming to answer the PICO-based focused question “are pit and fissure sealants (I) more effective than other interventions, control or no treatment (C) in preventing and arresting occlusal caries (O) in primary and permanent teeth (P)?”, were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2. The overlap between reviews was calculated (corrected covered, CCA).

Results

Among the 25 included SRs, 18 underwent meta-analysis. Eighteen SRs considered sealing enamel caries lesions, one considered sealing dentine caries, and six considered both. Seventeen SRs were devoted to preventive sealing (RCT only, n = 12; RCT and n-RCT, n = 5), while eight were devoted to prevention and arrest of dental caries (RCT only, n = 5; RCT and n-RCT, n = 3). Nine SRs showed positive results for the primary dentition, and the most frequent periods of follow-up were at least 6 (n = 5) and 12 months (n = 4). According to our meta-analysis, a significant association between resin-based sealants (RBS) and dental caries prevention was detected at 6 months (n = 1) and over longer follow-up periods (n = 4), and the DMFT and dmft indices decreased (n = 2). RBS was better than fluoride varnish at preventing dentine caries (n = 1). A lower caries incidence rate was observed in the resin-modified glass ionomer group at 6 months (n = 1). Overall, the sealants were superior (n = 11), similar (n = 21), or inferior (n = 1) to the other treatments. The AMSTAR-2 scores for studies on preventive sealing were critically low (n = 8), low (n = 6), moderate (n = 1) and high (n = 2) for studies on preventive sealing and critically low (n = 5), low (n = 2) and high (n = 1) for studies on the prevention and arrest of caries lesions. The overlap was low (CCA = 3%).

Conclusion

This overview suggests that pit and fissure sealants are not inferior to other interventions in preventing and arresting dental caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth.

窝沟封闭剂是否能有效预防和阻止基牙和恒牙的咬合龋?系统综述
材料与方法 对截至 2023 年 5 月的六个数据库和灰色文献进行了检索。纳入的系统综述(SR)包括随机试验(RCT)和非随机临床试验(n-RCT),旨在回答基于 PICO 的重点问题:"在预防和阻止基牙和恒牙(P)的咬合龋(O)方面,窝沟封闭剂(I)是否比其他干预措施、对照或不治疗(C)更有效?方法学质量采用 AMSTAR-2 进行评估。结果在纳入的 25 篇研究报告中,有 18 篇进行了荟萃分析。18 篇综述考虑了封闭釉质龋损,1 篇综述考虑了封闭牙本质龋损,6 篇综述考虑了两者。17 篇研究报告专门讨论了预防性封闭(只有 RCT,n = 12;RCT 和 n-RCT,n = 5),而 8 篇研究报告专门讨论了龋齿的预防和遏制(只有 RCT,n = 5;RCT 和 n-RCT,n = 3)。有 9 项研究对基牙治疗取得了积极成果,最常见的随访期至少为 6 个月(n = 5)和 12 个月(n = 4)。根据我们的荟萃分析,在 6 个月(n = 1)和更长的随访期(n = 4)内发现树脂基封闭剂(RBS)与龋齿预防之间存在显著关联,DMFT 和 dmft 指数有所下降(n = 2)。RBS 在预防牙本质龋齿方面的效果优于氟化物清漆(n = 1)。6 个月时,树脂改性玻璃离聚体组的龋齿发生率较低(n = 1)。总体而言,封闭剂的效果优于(11 例)、相似(21 例)或劣于(1 例)其他治疗方法。关于预防性封闭剂的研究,AMSTAR-2评分为极低(n = 8)、低(n = 6)、中(n = 1)和高(n = 2);关于预防和阻止龋损的研究,AMSTAR-2评分为极低(n = 5)、低(n = 2)和高(n = 1)。重叠率较低(CCA = 3%)。结论本综述表明,在预防和阻止基牙和恒牙龋齿病变方面,窝沟封闭剂并不逊色于其他干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice
Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
105
审稿时长
28 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice presents timely original articles, as well as reviews of articles on the results and outcomes of clinical procedures and treatment. The Journal advocates the use or rejection of a procedure based on solid, clinical evidence found in literature. The Journal''s dynamic operating principles are explicitness in process and objectives, publication of the highest-quality reviews and original articles, and an emphasis on objectivity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信