口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (4): 336-340.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2026.04.012

• 口腔预防医学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同酸蚀模式应用于窝沟封闭的临床效果研究

马鹏程1, 魏永杰1, 田文仙1, 任乐文1,2, 丁月1,2, 李俊雅1,2, 谢玲1,2*   

  1. 1.安徽医科大学合肥口腔临床学院 安徽 合肥 230000;
    2.合肥市口腔医院西区儿童口腔科 安徽 合肥 230601
  • 收稿日期:2025-05-19 发布日期:2026-04-23
  • 通讯作者: *谢玲,E-mail:20246426@qq.com
  • 作者简介:马鹏程(2000~ ),男,山西临汾人,在读硕士,医师,主要研究方向为儿童口腔医学。
  • 基金资助:
    2025年合肥市口腔医院院级重点科研项目(编号:HKq2025zd12)

Clinical Study on Effects of Different Etching Modes in Pit and Fissure Sealant Application

MA Pengcheng1, WEI Yongjie1, TIAN Wenxian1, REN Lewen1,2, DING Yue1,2, LI Junya1,2, XIE Ling1,2*   

  1. 1. Hefei Stomatological Clinical Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230601, China;
    2. Department of Pediatrics Dentistry, Hefei Stomatological Hospital West, Hefei 230601, China
  • Received:2025-05-19 Published:2026-04-23

PDF (PC)

0

摘要： 目的:窝沟封闭是预防窝沟龋的有效方法,不同酸蚀模式可能影响封闭剂的封闭效果和长期保留率,本研究分别采用常规磷酸酸蚀模式、自酸蚀模式和酸蚀-粘接模式3种酸蚀模式进行窝沟封闭术,研究不同酸蚀模式下窝沟封闭效果。方法:选择至少3颗第一恒磨牙完全萌出伴深窝沟的儿童80例为研究对象,240颗第一恒磨牙作为试验牙。采用自身对照的方法,分为3组,A组:自酸蚀模式;B组:酸蚀-粘接模式;C组:磷酸酸蚀模式。术后随诊3、6、12个月,比较3组封闭剂保留率、窝沟龋发病率和封闭剂边缘着色率。结果:3、6个月随访时,3组封闭剂保留率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);12个月时,B组封闭剂保留率(95.7%)最高,A组(78.7%)最低,A组与B组差异有统计学意义(P＜0.0167),但A、C组与B、C组之间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.0167)。3组在各随访时间点的窝沟龋发病率和封闭剂边缘着色率差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。结论:酸蚀-粘接模式的封闭剂保留率最高,而自酸蚀模式保留率最低,临床应用是应优先选择酸蚀-粘接模式,以提高封闭剂的长期稳定性,增强防龋效果。

关键词: 窝沟封闭, 封闭剂保留率, 酸蚀-粘接, 自酸蚀

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the effects of three etching methods on the clinical outcomes of dental sealants in pit-and-fissure sealing. Methods: Eighty children, each with at least three fully erupted first permanent molars exhibiting deep pits and fissures, were recruited, yielding a total of 240 experimental teeth. Using a split-mouth, self-controlled design, teeth were randomly assigned to three groups: Group A (self-etching mode), Group B (etch-and-bond mode), and Group C (phosphoric acid etching mode). Follow-up evaluations were conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively to assess complete sealant retention rates, incidence of pit and fissure caries, and marginal staining rates. Results: At 3 and 6 months, no statistically significant differences in complete retention rates were observed among Groups A, B, and C (P＞0.05). At 12 months, Group B demonstrated the highest complete retention rate (95.7%), while Group A had the lowest (78.7%), with a statistically significant difference (P＜0.0167). No significant differences were found between Groups A and C or Groups B and C (P＞0.0167). Throughout all follow-up periods, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups in terms of pit and fissure caries incidence or marginal staining rates (P＞0.05). Conclusion: The etch-and-bond technique achieved superior long-term sealant retention compared to the self-etch method. In clinical practice, the etch-and-bond approach is recommended to enhance the durability and caries-preventive effectiveness of pit-and-fissure sealants.

Key words: pit-and-fissure sealing, sealant retention rate, etch-and-bond, self-etch