中国实用口腔科杂志

中国实用口腔科杂志

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

氟保护漆对学龄前儿童乳磨牙防龋效果评价

张瑜瑜1，张    颖2，和    睦1，雷    双1，路振富1   

  1. 1. 中国医科大学附属口腔医院口腔预防科，辽宁省口腔医学研究所口腔预防医学教研室，辽宁  沈阳  110002；2. 上海市口腔医院，复旦大学附属口腔医院，上海  200001
  • 出版日期:2016-04-15 发布日期:2016-05-10
  • 基金资助:

    辽宁省科技计划项目（2013225090）

  • Online:2016-04-15 Published:2016-05-10

摘要：

目的    评价氟保护漆对于学龄前儿童乳磨牙的防龋作用。方法    于2012年2月在沈阳市采用随机抽样法选取7所幼儿园的320名3岁儿童。将经过家长同意并签署知情同意书的儿童作为试验组，将未签署知情同意书的儿童作为对照组。对试验组儿童乳磨牙每半年涂1次氟保护漆，为期2年，并进行口腔卫生宣教；对照组仅做口腔卫生宣教。在试验前后对两组儿童乳磨牙患龋情况进行比较分析。结果    共304名儿童完成了试验，其中试验组114人，对照组190人。乳磨牙患龋率、龋均、龋面均，试验组分别为50.88%、1.76 ± 2.27、2.96 ± 5.28，对照组分别为63.68%、2.39 ± 2.50、3.77 ± 5.17。其中，试验组的患龋率和龋均低于对照组，差异有统计学意义（χ2 = 6.031和t = -2.190，均P < 0.05）；而两组龋面均相比，差异无统计学意义（t = -1.316，P > 0.05）。乳磨牙龋病发病率、新增龋均、新增龋面均，试验组分别为15.79%，0.65 ± 1.73，1.49 ± 3.49，对照组分别为24.74%，1.23 ± 3.17，2.20 ± 5.94。其中，试验组的龋病发病率和新增龋面均略低于对照组，但差异无统计学意义（χ2 = 3.390和t = -1.311，均P > 0.05）；两组新增龋均相比，差异有统计学意义（t = -2.072，P < 0.05）。乳磨牙邻面新增龋面均，试验组为0.70 ± 1.78，对照组为1.15 ± 1.94，两组差异有统计学意义（t = -3.150，P < 0.05）。结论    氟保护漆对于乳磨牙窝沟无显著防龋作用，但对邻面龋有一定的预防作用。

关键词: 氟保护漆, 学龄前儿童, 乳磨牙, 龋齿

Abstract:

Objective    To observe the preventive effect of fluoride varnish for caries in deciduous molar in the preschool children. Methods    Totally 320 three-year-old children chosen from seven kindergartens in Shenyang were divided into two groups in February 2012. The experimental group whose parents had signed the informed consent were painted fluoride vanish every half year，while others were selected as control group. Both groups were given oral health education. The caries status of two groups of children were compared before and after the experiment. Results    A total of 304 children completed the trial，and caries prevalence rate，DMF and DMFS in experimental groups（114 children）were 50.88%，1.76 ± 2.27 and 2.96 ± 5.28，respectively. However，caries prevalence rate（χ2 = 6.031）and DMF（t = -2.190）were statistically different（P < 0.05）compared to control group（63.68%，2.39 ± 2.50）. DMFS（t = -1.316）is no statistical differences（P > 0.05）in comparison with control group（3.77 ± 5.17）. Caries incidence rate，add DMF and add DMFS in experimental groups （114 children）were 15.79%，0.65 ± 1.73 and 1.49 ± 3.49，respectively. However，caries incidence rate （χ2 = 3.390）and add DMFS in pits and fissures（t = -1.311） were of no statistical differences（P > 0.05）compared to control group（24.74%，2.20 ± 5.94）. DMF（t = -2.072 ）had statistical differences （P < 0.05） in comparison with control group（1.23 ± 3.17）. Add DMFS（t  = -3.150）in proximal surface was 0.70 ± 1.78，which was lower than that in control group（1.15 ± 1.94，P < 0.05）. Conclusion    There is no significant difference in anti-caries effect painted by fluoride varnish in pits and fissures，however，fluoride varnish has a certain protective effect on proximal surface caries.

Key words: fluoride varnish, preschool children, deciduous molar, caries