| Literature DB >> 31311541 |
Weijia Liu1, Lihua Xiong1, Jianbo Li2, Chongshan Guo1, Weihua Fan2, Shaohong Huang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Analyses of the effects of pit and fissure sealant have been based on small samples and lack large-scale field evaluation data in China. The aim of this study was to understand the effect of pit and fissure sealant in preventing caries in the first permanent molars (FPMs) of children in Guangzhou.Entities:
Keywords: Cumulative incidence of caries; Dental caries; Pit and fissure sealant
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31311541 PMCID: PMC6636114 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0846-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 2.757
Fig. 1Participant selection flowchart
Baseline demographic characteristics of the sealant and control groups
| Variable | Sealant group | Control group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||
| Female | 2515(52.2) | 2434(55.4) | > 0.05 |
| Male | 2307(47.8) | 1962(44.6) | > 0.05 |
| District area | |||
| Urban | 4107(85.2) | 3608(82.1) | > 0.05 |
| Rural | 715(14.8) | 788(17.9) | > 0.05 |
| Total | 4822 | 4396 | |
Cumulative incidence and relative risk of developing dental caries in the first permanent molars by sex and area
| Sealant group | Control group | Adjusted HR* (95% CI) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Case | Cumulative incidence of caries (%) | N | Case | Cumulative incidence of caries (%) | |||
| Sex | ||||||||
| Male | 2515 | 315 | 12.5 | 2434 | 522 | 21.4 | 0.59 (0.51–0.68) | < 0.001 |
| Female | 2307 | 387 | 16.8 | 1962 | 499 | 25.4 | 0.66 (0.58–0.76) | < 0.001 |
| District area | ||||||||
| Urban | 4107 | 581 | 14.1 | 3608 | 787 | 21.8 | 0.65 (0.58–0.72) | < 0.001 |
| Rural | 715 | 121 | 16.9 | 788 | 234 | 29.7 | 0.56 (0.45–0.70) | < 0.001 |
| Total | 4822 | 702 | 14.6 | 4396 | 1021 | 23.2 | 0.63 (0.57–0.69) | < 0.001 |
FPMs = first permanent molars, HR = hazard ratio, CI = confidence interval. * using Cox model, adjusting for children sex and district area appropriately
Mean DMFT in the FPMs and difference between sealant group and control group by sex and area
| Sealant group | Control group | Mean difference* (95%CI) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | DMFT | DMFT Mean ± SD | N | DMFT | DMFT Mean ± SD | |||
| Sex | ||||||||
| Male | 2515 | 431 | 0.17 ± 0.51# | 2434 | 786 | 0.32 ± 0.71 | −0.15(−0.19 to −0.12) | < 0.001 |
| Female | 2307 | 550 | 0.24 ± 0.61# | 1962 | 743 | 0.38 ± 0.75 | −0.14(− 0.18 to − 0.10) | < 0.001 |
| District area | ||||||||
| Urban | 4107 | 821 | 0.20 ± 0.56# | 3608 | 1194 | 0.33 ± 0.72 | −0.13(− 0.16 to − 0.10) | < 0.001 |
| Rural | 715 | 160 | 0.22 ± .56# | 788 | 335 | 0.43 ± 0.76 | −0.20(− 0.27 to − 0.13) | < 0.001 |
| Total | 4822 | 981 | 0.20 ± 0.56 | 4396 | 1529 | 0.35 ± 0.73 | −0.14(− 0.17 to − 0.12) | < 0.001 |
FPMs = first permanent molars, CI = confidence interval. * using mixed linear regression analysis, adjusting for children sex and district area appropriately. # compare the difference of mean number DMFT in the FPMs between the sealant group and control group, p< 0.05
Cumulative incidence of developing dental caries in the maxillary and mandibular teeth of the FPMs
| Tooth site | Sealant group | Control group | χ2 value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All the FPMs | Dental caries | cumulative incidence of caries (%) | All the FPMs | Dental caries | cumulative incidence of caries (%) | |||
| Maxilla | 12234 | 821 | 6.71* | 10917 | 1194 | 10.94* | 129.68 | < 0.001 |
| Mandible | 1768 | 160 | 9.05 | 2044 | 335 | 16.39 | 45.20 | < 0.001 |
| Total | 14002 | 981 | 7.01 | 12961 | 1529 | 11.80 | 182.98 | < 0.001 |
FPMs = first permanent molars; * compare cumulative incidence of caries between maxilla and mandible, P < 0.001