Efficacy of light cured flowable composite resin and light cured pit and fissure sealant for prevention of dental caries in children: a meta-analysis_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

LIU Yanqing ¹ , XU Qiang ¹ ,  ZHANG Fujun ²

1. Department of Stomatology, Beibei Traditional Chinese Medical Hospital, Chongqing, 400700, P.R.China;
2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, P.R.China;

Corresponding?author：

ZHANG Fujun, Email: cnzfj@163.com

Keywords：

Light cured flowable composite resin; Pit and fissure sealant; Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trial

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201704048

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of the light cured flowable composite resin and the light cured pit and fissure sealant in the prevention of dental caries in children. Methods EMbase, CBM, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched from inception to January 1^st, 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs about the application of the light cured flowable composite resin and the light cured pit and fissure sealants. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, the RevMan 5.3 software was applied to conduct meta-analysis. Results A total of 13 studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the complete retention rate of the light cured flowable composite resin group was higher than that of the light cured pit and fissure sealant group (6 months: RR=1.03, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.06, P=0.03; 12 months: RR=1.09, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.13, P=0.000 3; 24 months: RR=1.22, 95%CI 1.13 to 1.31, P<0.000 01). The incidence of caries of the light cured flowable composite resin group was lower than that of the light cured pit and fissure sealant group (12 months: Peto OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.56,P=0.000 2; 24 months: Peto OR=0.44, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.63, P<0.000 01). Conclusion The light cured flowable composite resin is superior to the light cured pit and fissure sealant in the complete retention and caries prevention. The above conclusions are needed to be verified by more high-quality clinical studies because of the limitation of the quality and follow-up time of studies.

Citation： LIU Yanqing, XU Qiang, ZHANG Fujun. Efficacy of light cured flowable composite resin and light cured pit and fissure sealant for prevention of dental caries in children: a meta-analysis. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2018, 18(2): 178-184. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201704048 Copy

1.	Asefi S, Eskandarion S, Hamidiaval S. Fissure sealant materials: wear resistance of flowable composite resins. Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect, 2016, 10(3): 194-199.
2.	Bhushan U, Goswami M. Evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealants placed with and without air abrasion pretreatment in 6-8 year old children-an in vivo study. J Clin Exp Dent, 2017, 9(2): 211-217.
3.	Martin LS, Huertos-Marchante A, Galvan-Martos J, et al. Dental sealant knowledge, opinion, values and practice of Spanish dental hygienists. BMC Oral Health, 2017, 15(1): 46-52.
4.	劉怡然, 吳曉晗, 周紅艷, 等. 第一恒磨牙窩溝封閉 3 年臨床效果觀察. 口腔醫學, 2016, 36(8): 749-752.
5.	謝妮娜, 宋文婷, 魏路明, 等. 磷酸酸蝕結合流動樹脂對年輕恒牙窩溝封閉的療效分析. 口腔醫學, 2015, 35(12): 1045-1048.
6.	張元, 周洲, 于金華. 流動樹脂的研究進展. 口腔醫學, 2016, 36(5): 475-477.
7.	Jafarzadeh M, Malekafzali B, Tadayon N, et al. Retention of aflowable composite resin in comparison to a conventional resinbasedsealant: one-year follow-up. J Dent, 2010, 7(1): 1-5.
8.	史艷芬, 劉偉偉, 劉雪. 年輕恒牙應用不同窩溝封閉材料臨床觀察. 濟寧醫學院學報, 2015, 38(2): 114-116.
9.	Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2002, 21(11): 1539-1558.
10.	俞少玲, 葛久禹, 楊如美, 等. 兩種光固化材料行窩溝封閉術后 3 年臨床效果. 廣東牙病防治, 2008, 16(10): 448-449.
11.	劉海燕. 窩溝封閉劑與流體樹脂的臨床應用對比. 中國療養醫學, 2010, 19(8): 732-732.
12.	陳述, 王亞. 流動樹脂與窩溝封閉劑對年輕恒牙封閉效果的臨床評價. 華北煤炭醫學院學報, 2011, 13(6): 812-813.
13.	李相如, 王海濱, 劉愛蓮. 自酸蝕粘接劑結合流動樹脂對年輕恒牙窩溝封閉的臨床評. 口腔醫學研究, 2011, 27(7): 603-605.
14.	邱利華. 流體樹脂預防性充填和窩溝封閉的臨床療效觀察. 臨床醫學與護理研究, 2011, 10(5): 22-23.
15.	蒲寒秋, 肖世芳, 勾京東. 3M Filtek Z350 流動樹脂與 Pekaseal 光固化窩溝封閉劑預防兒童齲病的臨床效果研究. 中國醫藥指南, 2013, 11(9): 39-40.
16.	王躍巖, 高朗. 兩種窩溝封閉劑防治兒童齲病的療效比較. 中國現代醫生, 2013, 51(25): 138-139.
17.	張志銀. 流體樹脂預防性充填防齲療效觀察. 航空航天醫學雜志, 2014, 25(7): 920-921.
18.	高丹. 光固化流體樹脂與可見光固化窩溝封閉劑防治兒童齲病的療效對比. 臨床醫學工程, 2014, 21(2): 177-178.
19.	韓靜, 于洪波, 焦菲菲. 光固化流體樹脂窩溝封閉防齲療效的評價. 口腔醫學, 2016, 36(2): 132-134.
20.	Sundfeld D, Machado LS, Franco LM, et al. Clinical/photographic/scanning electron microscopy analysis of pit and fissure sealants after 22 years: a case series. Oper Dent, 2017, 42(1): 10-18.
21.	Gawali PN, Chaugule VB, Panse AM. Comparison of microleakage and penetration depth between hydrophilic and ydrophobic sealants in primary second molar. Int J Clin Pediatr Den, 2016, 9(4): 291-295.
22.	Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yaman BC, et al .Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant: a 24-month split-mouth, randomized, and controlled study. J Dent, 2013, 42(2): 149-157.

1. Asefi S, Eskandarion S, Hamidiaval S. Fissure sealant materials: wear resistance of flowable composite resins. Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect, 2016, 10(3): 194-199.
2. Bhushan U, Goswami M. Evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealants placed with and without air abrasion pretreatment in 6-8 year old children-an in vivo study. J Clin Exp Dent, 2017, 9(2): 211-217.
3. Martin LS, Huertos-Marchante A, Galvan-Martos J, et al. Dental sealant knowledge, opinion, values and practice of Spanish dental hygienists. BMC Oral Health, 2017, 15(1): 46-52.
4. 劉怡然, 吳曉晗, 周紅艷, 等. 第一恒磨牙窩溝封閉 3 年臨床效果觀察. 口腔醫學, 2016, 36(8): 749-752.
5. 謝妮娜, 宋文婷, 魏路明, 等. 磷酸酸蝕結合流動樹脂對年輕恒牙窩溝封閉的療效分析. 口腔醫學, 2015, 35(12): 1045-1048.
6. 張元, 周洲, 于金華. 流動樹脂的研究進展. 口腔醫學, 2016, 36(5): 475-477.
7. Jafarzadeh M, Malekafzali B, Tadayon N, et al. Retention of aflowable composite resin in comparison to a conventional resinbasedsealant: one-year follow-up. J Dent, 2010, 7(1): 1-5.
8. 史艷芬, 劉偉偉, 劉雪. 年輕恒牙應用不同窩溝封閉材料臨床觀察. 濟寧醫學院學報, 2015, 38(2): 114-116.
9. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2002, 21(11): 1539-1558.
10. 俞少玲, 葛久禹, 楊如美, 等. 兩種光固化材料行窩溝封閉術后 3 年臨床效果. 廣東牙病防治, 2008, 16(10): 448-449.
11. 劉海燕. 窩溝封閉劑與流體樹脂的臨床應用對比. 中國療養醫學, 2010, 19(8): 732-732.
12. 陳述, 王亞. 流動樹脂與窩溝封閉劑對年輕恒牙封閉效果的臨床評價. 華北煤炭醫學院學報, 2011, 13(6): 812-813.
13. 李相如, 王海濱, 劉愛蓮. 自酸蝕粘接劑結合流動樹脂對年輕恒牙窩溝封閉的臨床評. 口腔醫學研究, 2011, 27(7): 603-605.
14. 邱利華. 流體樹脂預防性充填和窩溝封閉的臨床療效觀察. 臨床醫學與護理研究, 2011, 10(5): 22-23.
15. 蒲寒秋, 肖世芳, 勾京東. 3M Filtek Z350 流動樹脂與 Pekaseal 光固化窩溝封閉劑預防兒童齲病的臨床效果研究. 中國醫藥指南, 2013, 11(9): 39-40.
16. 王躍巖, 高朗. 兩種窩溝封閉劑防治兒童齲病的療效比較. 中國現代醫生, 2013, 51(25): 138-139.
17. 張志銀. 流體樹脂預防性充填防齲療效觀察. 航空航天醫學雜志, 2014, 25(7): 920-921.
18. 高丹. 光固化流體樹脂與可見光固化窩溝封閉劑防治兒童齲病的療效對比. 臨床醫學工程, 2014, 21(2): 177-178.
19. 韓靜, 于洪波, 焦菲菲. 光固化流體樹脂窩溝封閉防齲療效的評價. 口腔醫學, 2016, 36(2): 132-134.
20. Sundfeld D, Machado LS, Franco LM, et al. Clinical/photographic/scanning electron microscopy analysis of pit and fissure sealants after 22 years: a case series. Oper Dent, 2017, 42(1): 10-18.
21. Gawali PN, Chaugule VB, Panse AM. Comparison of microleakage and penetration depth between hydrophilic and ydrophobic sealants in primary second molar. Int J Clin Pediatr Den, 2016, 9(4): 291-295.
22. Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yaman BC, et al .Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant: a 24-month split-mouth, randomized, and controlled study. J Dent, 2013, 42(2): 149-157.

Previous Article
Certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate for active rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis
Next Article
Autologous bone marrow cell transplantation for patients with diabetic foot: a systematic review

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Efficacy of light cured flowable composite resin and light cured pit and fissure sealant for prevention of dental caries in children: a meta-analysis

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content