CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较2种光固化材料用于第一恒磨牙窝沟封闭的临床效果。方法对146名6～10岁患儿采用不同的方法进行窝沟封闭术。在每名学生的双侧下颌第一恒磨牙，随机选择一侧试验组用光固化流体树脂窝沟预防性充填，另一侧对照组用传统窝沟封闭剂封闭，统一由高年资医师操作。在6个月、1年、2年疗效对照分析。结果光固化流体树脂预防性充填在6个月、1年、2年成功率分别为97.89％、95.03％、89.93％；普通窝沟封闭组分别为94.37％、88.65％、75.54％。2年后复查对照组患龋率为7.91％，而试验组患龋率为2.26％，两者有显著差异性（P＜0.05），说明流体树脂预防性充填更能有效地起到防龋作用。结论光固化流体树脂预防性充填用于预防年轻恒磨牙窝沟龋疗效确切。
목적：비교2충광고화재료용우제일항마아와구봉폐적림상효과。방법대146명6～10세환인채용불동적방법진행와구봉폐술。재매명학생적쌍측하합제일항마아，수궤선택일측시험조용광고화류체수지와구예방성충전，령일측대조조용전통와구봉폐제봉폐，통일유고년자의사조작。재6개월、1년、2년료효대조분석。결과광고화류체수지예방성충전재6개월、1년、2년성공솔분별위97.89％、95.03％、89.93％；보통와구봉폐조분별위94.37％、88.65％、75.54％。2년후복사대조조환우솔위7.91％，이시험조환우솔위2.26％，량자유현저차이성（P＜0.05），설명류체수지예방성충전경능유효지기도방우작용。결론광고화류체수지예방성충전용우예방년경항마아와구우료효학절。
Objective To compared the clinical effect of two light cured pit and fissure sealants on the permanent molar.Methods Two different methods were applied to Pit and fissure permanent molars in 146 patients aged form 6 to 10 years.In the test group ,146 permanent molars were treated using flowable resin.In the control group ,146 permanent molars were treated using classical Pit -and-fissure sealants.After 6months,1 year, 2 years efficacy comparison study was carried out at a same standard respectively.Results The effective rate of the groups with flowable resin to preven-tive resin restoration were 97.89%, 95.03%and 89.93%;The effective rate of the groups with classical Pit -and-fis-sure sealants were 94.37%, 88.65%and 75.54%.There was not significant difference between groups in 6month and 1year efficacy, but there was significant difference in 2years.Conclusions Light-cure flowable resin preventive resto-ration was a reliable permanent molars Pit -and-fissure sealants.