Comparative evaluation of pit & fissure sealant retention using cotton roll & rubber dam isolation techniques – a systematic review & meta-analysis

IF 2.3 Q3 Dentistry Evidence-based dentistry Pub Date : 2024-12-02 DOI:10.1038/s41432-024-01092-6
Neha Shukla, Zainab Akram, P. G. Naveen Kumar, Mahesh R. Khairnar, Sachin Kumar Jadhav, Savitha Priyadarsini
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of pit & fissure sealant retention using cotton roll & rubber dam isolation techniques – a systematic review & meta-analysis","authors":"Neha Shukla, Zainab Akram, P. G. Naveen Kumar, Mahesh R. Khairnar, Sachin Kumar Jadhav, Savitha Priyadarsini","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01092-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Isolation with cotton rolls does not always provide as complete isolation as rubber dam, especially in procedures where absolute moisture control is critical. Therefore, this review aims to summarize and analyze previous studies evaluating the retention and marginal integrity of pit & fissure sealant using rubber dam and cotton roll isolation techniques during dental treatment in children. In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, search yielded 1361 articles, with seven RCTs and one non-RCT design meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted on study design, sample size, sealant type, follow-up duration, retention rates, and caries incidence. The comparison of retention rate between rubber dam and cotton roll at six months difference was non-significant (OR:1.15; p = 0.64) while there was significant difference at 12 month (OR:2.23; p < 0.001). The difference for the marginal integrity was statistically significant at six months (OR:2.00; p = 0.03) while non-significant difference observed (OR:1.74; p = 0.10) at 12 months. The sealant placed using a rubber dam as an isolation technique showed higher retention than the cotton roll after 12 months. In terms of marginal integrity, the performance of the rubber dam and cotton roll was equivalent at the end of 12 months.","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":"26 2","pages":"112-112"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01092-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Isolation with cotton rolls does not always provide as complete isolation as rubber dam, especially in procedures where absolute moisture control is critical. Therefore, this review aims to summarize and analyze previous studies evaluating the retention and marginal integrity of pit & fissure sealant using rubber dam and cotton roll isolation techniques during dental treatment in children. In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, search yielded 1361 articles, with seven RCTs and one non-RCT design meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted on study design, sample size, sealant type, follow-up duration, retention rates, and caries incidence. The comparison of retention rate between rubber dam and cotton roll at six months difference was non-significant (OR:1.15; p = 0.64) while there was significant difference at 12 month (OR:2.23; p < 0.001). The difference for the marginal integrity was statistically significant at six months (OR:2.00; p = 0.03) while non-significant difference observed (OR:1.74; p = 0.10) at 12 months. The sealant placed using a rubber dam as an isolation technique showed higher retention than the cotton roll after 12 months. In terms of marginal integrity, the performance of the rubber dam and cotton roll was equivalent at the end of 12 months.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用棉卷和橡胶坝隔离技术的坑和裂缝密封剂保留的比较评价-系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:棉卷的隔离并不总是像橡胶坝那样提供完全的隔离,特别是在绝对湿度控制至关重要的过程中。因此,本文旨在总结和分析以往在儿童牙科治疗中使用橡胶坝和棉卷隔离技术评估坑裂密封剂的保留和边缘完整性的研究。材料和方法:按照PRISMA指南,检索到1361篇文章,其中7篇rct和1篇非rct设计符合纳入标准。数据包括研究设计、样本量、密封剂类型、随访时间、保留率和龋齿发生率。结果:橡胶坝与棉卷在6个月时保留率差异无统计学意义(OR:1.15;p = 0.64),而在12个月时差异有统计学意义(OR:2.23;结论:采用橡胶坝作为隔离技术放置的密封胶在12个月后的固位率高于棉卷。在边缘完整性方面,橡胶坝和棉辊在12个月结束时的性能相当。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
期刊最新文献
Association between atherosclerosis and tooth loss in adult patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. A dental-friendly menu? Asking different questions and involving different voices in evidence-based dentistry. How does a Truss conservative endodontic access cavity impact the degree of intra-canal disinfection and postoperative pain? From reviews to real-time: dynamic evidence in dentistry. Which retrieval technique offers the highest success rate for fractured dental implant abutment screws while preserving implant integrity?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1