Sealant retention, patient satisfaction, and operator preference: a split-mouth randomised controlled trial comparing EasyPrep® and cotton roll isolation in a dental school setting.
W Kornkrasunk, C Manmontri, P Chompu-Inwai, A Nirunsittirat, W Tangtrakooljaroen, B Thiangjai, P Boonphirom, S Arjitpunyo, N Chaipattanawan
{"title":"Sealant retention, patient satisfaction, and operator preference: a split-mouth randomised controlled trial comparing EasyPrep<sup>®</sup> and cotton roll isolation in a dental school setting.","authors":"W Kornkrasunk, C Manmontri, P Chompu-Inwai, A Nirunsittirat, W Tangtrakooljaroen, B Thiangjai, P Boonphirom, S Arjitpunyo, N Chaipattanawan","doi":"10.1007/s40368-025-01111-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare sealant retention, patient satisfaction, and operator preference between EasyPrep<sup>®</sup> and cotton roll isolation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This university-based, superiority, split-mouth randomised controlled trial enrolled 92 children aged 6-12 years with matched contralateral pairs of maxillary or mandibular permanent first molars (PFMs). Each participant was randomised to receive sealants using either EasyPrep<sup>®</sup> or cotton roll isolation on one side, followed by the alternative method on the contralateral side. All sealants were placed by dental students under the faculty supervision and were assessed for retention by two blinded examiners at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Sealant retention success was compared between groups using risk regression with generalised estimating equations. Patient satisfaction and operator preference were assessed through interview-based questionnaires and summarised using descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 180 pairs of PFMs included at baseline, 155 and 110 were evaluated at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. The relative risks of sealant retention success with EasyPrep<sup>®</sup> compared to cotton roll isolation were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83; 1.09, p > 0.05) at 6 months and 0.96 (95% CI 0.76; 1.23, p > 0.05) at 12 months. These results indicate a slightly lower probability of retention success with EasyPrep<sup>®</sup> at both time points, although the differences were not statistically significant. Moreover, children tended to prefer cotton roll isolation (44.6%), whereas operators favoured EasyPrep<sup>®</sup> (59.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although most operators preferred EasyPrep<sup>®</sup>, its sealant retention was not superior to that of cotton roll isolation. Moreover, patients' preference was more toward cotton roll isolation.</p>","PeriodicalId":520615,"journal":{"name":"European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-025-01111-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To compare sealant retention, patient satisfaction, and operator preference between EasyPrep® and cotton roll isolation.
Methods: This university-based, superiority, split-mouth randomised controlled trial enrolled 92 children aged 6-12 years with matched contralateral pairs of maxillary or mandibular permanent first molars (PFMs). Each participant was randomised to receive sealants using either EasyPrep® or cotton roll isolation on one side, followed by the alternative method on the contralateral side. All sealants were placed by dental students under the faculty supervision and were assessed for retention by two blinded examiners at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Sealant retention success was compared between groups using risk regression with generalised estimating equations. Patient satisfaction and operator preference were assessed through interview-based questionnaires and summarised using descriptive statistics.
Results: Of the 180 pairs of PFMs included at baseline, 155 and 110 were evaluated at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. The relative risks of sealant retention success with EasyPrep® compared to cotton roll isolation were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83; 1.09, p > 0.05) at 6 months and 0.96 (95% CI 0.76; 1.23, p > 0.05) at 12 months. These results indicate a slightly lower probability of retention success with EasyPrep® at both time points, although the differences were not statistically significant. Moreover, children tended to prefer cotton roll isolation (44.6%), whereas operators favoured EasyPrep® (59.8%).
Conclusion: Although most operators preferred EasyPrep®, its sealant retention was not superior to that of cotton roll isolation. Moreover, patients' preference was more toward cotton roll isolation.
目的:比较EasyPrep®和棉卷隔离之间的密封剂滞留、患者满意度和操作人员偏好。方法:这项以大学为基础,优势,裂口随机对照试验招募了92名6-12岁的儿童,他们的对侧配对对上颌或下颌恒磨牙(pfm)。每个参与者被随机分配,在一侧使用EasyPrep®或棉卷隔离剂,然后在对侧使用替代方法。所有的密封剂由牙科学生在教师的监督下放置,并在6个月和12个月的随访中由两名盲测考官评估保留情况。使用广义估计方程的风险回归比较各组间密封剂保留成功率。通过基于访谈的问卷评估患者满意度和操作人员偏好,并使用描述性统计进行汇总。结果:在基线时纳入的180对pfm中,分别在6个月和12个月的随访中评估了155对和110对。与棉卷隔离相比,EasyPrep®密封胶保留成功的相对风险在6个月时为0.95(95%可信区间[CI] 0.83; 1.09, p > 0.05),在12个月时为0.96 (95% CI 0.76; 1.23, p > 0.05)。这些结果表明EasyPrep®在两个时间点保留成功的概率略低,尽管差异无统计学意义。此外,儿童倾向于棉卷隔离(44.6%),而操作人员倾向于EasyPrep®(59.8%)。结论:虽然大多数操作人员首选EasyPrep®,但其密封剂保持性并不优于棉卷隔离。此外,患者更倾向于棉卷隔离。