{"title":"美国一个大型牙科网络采用封闭剂治疗咬合面非龋齿的情况和效果。","authors":"Nilesh H Shah, Jeffrey L Fellows, Deborah E Polk","doi":"10.1159/000540884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Dental sealants applied to occlusal pit-and-fissure surfaces have been shown to prevent caries and arrest occlusal noncavitated carious lesions (NCCLs). The American Dental Association (ADA) recommends that oral healthcare providers apply sealants on occlusal NCCLs. Though the evidence is clear that sealants are effective, few studies have examined the adoption of the ADA guideline by dentists and the duration of protection provided by sealants in a large real-world setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used observational electronic health record (EHR) data from a network of dental clinics to follow teeth over a 2 year time period from when they were diagnosed as having an occlusal NCCL until either they were treated with a restoration or the time period ended with no restoration. The objectives of the study were to determine: (1) the degree to which dentists adopted the guideline, (2) whether the duration of protection was different for teeth that received a sealant from teeth that did not receive a sealant, and (3) whether dentists' experience placing sealants was associated with the duration of protection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, there were 7,299 teeth in the sample. Of those, dentists restored 591 teeth and applied sealants on 164. The sealant application rate for eligible teeth was 2.2%. Sealant application was associated with provider, with 1.9% of providers placing more than half of the sealants. By the end of the observation period, the proportion of teeth progressing to restorations was 8.2% for teeth that had not received a sealant and 3.0% for teeth that had received one (RR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.88; p = 0.02). Multilevel survival analysis showed that teeth that had not received a sealant were restored sooner than teeth that had received a sealant (aHR = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.03-0.36; p < 0.01). Overall, teeth that received a sealant had an 89% reduced hazard of restoration within 2 years compared with teeth that did not receive sealants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found that by arresting decay, the presence of sealants led to fewer restorations and delayed restorations compared with teeth not receiving a sealant or restoration in the 2 years following diagnosis of occlusal NCCL in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9620,"journal":{"name":"Caries Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adoption and Effect of Sealants for Occlusal Noncavitated Caries in a Large Dental Network in the USA.\",\"authors\":\"Nilesh H Shah, Jeffrey L Fellows, Deborah E Polk\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000540884\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Dental sealants applied to occlusal pit-and-fissure surfaces have been shown to prevent caries and arrest occlusal noncavitated carious lesions (NCCLs). The American Dental Association (ADA) recommends that oral healthcare providers apply sealants on occlusal NCCLs. Though the evidence is clear that sealants are effective, few studies have examined the adoption of the ADA guideline by dentists and the duration of protection provided by sealants in a large real-world setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used observational electronic health record (EHR) data from a network of dental clinics to follow teeth over a 2 year time period from when they were diagnosed as having an occlusal NCCL until either they were treated with a restoration or the time period ended with no restoration. The objectives of the study were to determine: (1) the degree to which dentists adopted the guideline, (2) whether the duration of protection was different for teeth that received a sealant from teeth that did not receive a sealant, and (3) whether dentists' experience placing sealants was associated with the duration of protection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, there were 7,299 teeth in the sample. Of those, dentists restored 591 teeth and applied sealants on 164. The sealant application rate for eligible teeth was 2.2%. Sealant application was associated with provider, with 1.9% of providers placing more than half of the sealants. By the end of the observation period, the proportion of teeth progressing to restorations was 8.2% for teeth that had not received a sealant and 3.0% for teeth that had received one (RR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.88; p = 0.02). Multilevel survival analysis showed that teeth that had not received a sealant were restored sooner than teeth that had received a sealant (aHR = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.03-0.36; p < 0.01). Overall, teeth that received a sealant had an 89% reduced hazard of restoration within 2 years compared with teeth that did not receive sealants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found that by arresting decay, the presence of sealants led to fewer restorations and delayed restorations compared with teeth not receiving a sealant or restoration in the 2 years following diagnosis of occlusal NCCL in clinical settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Caries Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Caries Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540884\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Caries Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540884","RegionNum":2,"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
摘要
简介:事实证明,在咬合凹陷和裂隙表面涂抹牙齿封闭剂可以预防龋齿并阻止咬合非凹陷性龋损(NCCLs)。美国牙科协会(ADA)建议口腔医疗服务提供者在咬合面的 NCCL 上涂抹封闭剂。尽管有证据表明封闭剂是有效的,但很少有研究对牙医采用 ADA 指南的情况以及封闭剂在大型真实环境中提供保护的持续时间进行研究:本研究使用牙科诊所网络的观察性电子健康记录 (EHR) 数据,在两年时间内对牙齿进行跟踪,从它们被诊断为有咬合 NCCL 开始,直到它们接受修复治疗或没有修复为止。研究的目的是确定1)牙医采用该指南的程度;2)接受封闭剂的牙齿和未接受封闭剂的牙齿的保护期是否不同;3)牙医放置封闭剂的经验是否与保护期有关:样本中共有 7299 颗牙齿。其中,牙医修复了 591 颗牙齿,为 164 颗牙齿涂抹了封闭剂。合格牙齿的封闭剂应用率为 2.2%。封闭剂的应用与提供者有关,有 1.9% 的提供者使用了一半以上的封闭剂。观察期结束时,未接受封闭剂的牙齿修复比例为 8.2%,接受封闭剂的牙齿修复比例为 3.0%(RR=0.37;95% CI (0.16-0.88);p=0.02)。多层次生存分析表明,未接受封闭剂的牙齿比接受封闭剂的牙齿修复得早(aHR=0.11;95% CI 0.03 - 0.36;p<.01)。总体而言,与未接受封闭剂的牙齿相比,接受封闭剂的牙齿在两年内修复的风险降低了89%:本研究发现,通过抑制龋坏,在临床环境中,与未接受封闭剂或修复的牙齿相比,接受封闭剂的牙齿在咬合NCCL诊断后两年内的修复次数更少,修复时间更晚。
Adoption and Effect of Sealants for Occlusal Noncavitated Caries in a Large Dental Network in the USA.
Introduction: Dental sealants applied to occlusal pit-and-fissure surfaces have been shown to prevent caries and arrest occlusal noncavitated carious lesions (NCCLs). The American Dental Association (ADA) recommends that oral healthcare providers apply sealants on occlusal NCCLs. Though the evidence is clear that sealants are effective, few studies have examined the adoption of the ADA guideline by dentists and the duration of protection provided by sealants in a large real-world setting.
Methods: This study used observational electronic health record (EHR) data from a network of dental clinics to follow teeth over a 2 year time period from when they were diagnosed as having an occlusal NCCL until either they were treated with a restoration or the time period ended with no restoration. The objectives of the study were to determine: (1) the degree to which dentists adopted the guideline, (2) whether the duration of protection was different for teeth that received a sealant from teeth that did not receive a sealant, and (3) whether dentists' experience placing sealants was associated with the duration of protection.
Results: Overall, there were 7,299 teeth in the sample. Of those, dentists restored 591 teeth and applied sealants on 164. The sealant application rate for eligible teeth was 2.2%. Sealant application was associated with provider, with 1.9% of providers placing more than half of the sealants. By the end of the observation period, the proportion of teeth progressing to restorations was 8.2% for teeth that had not received a sealant and 3.0% for teeth that had received one (RR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.88; p = 0.02). Multilevel survival analysis showed that teeth that had not received a sealant were restored sooner than teeth that had received a sealant (aHR = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.03-0.36; p < 0.01). Overall, teeth that received a sealant had an 89% reduced hazard of restoration within 2 years compared with teeth that did not receive sealants.
Conclusion: This study found that by arresting decay, the presence of sealants led to fewer restorations and delayed restorations compared with teeth not receiving a sealant or restoration in the 2 years following diagnosis of occlusal NCCL in clinical settings.
期刊介绍:
''Caries Research'' publishes epidemiological, clinical and laboratory studies in dental caries, erosion and related dental diseases. Some studies build on the considerable advances already made in caries prevention, e.g. through fluoride application. Some aim to improve understanding of the increasingly important problem of dental erosion and the associated tooth wear process. Others monitor the changing pattern of caries in different populations, explore improved methods of diagnosis or evaluate methods of prevention or treatment. The broad coverage of current research has given the journal an international reputation as an indispensable source for both basic scientists and clinicians engaged in understanding, investigating and preventing dental disease.