The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Amir Azarpazhooh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Fissure Sealant therapy as a portable community based care in deprived regions effectiveness of a clinical trial after 1 year follow up
Health & Social Care in The Community, 2020Co-Authors: Bahareh Tahani, Imaneh Asgari, Zahra Saied Moallemi, Amir AzarpazhoohAbstract:The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Fissure Sealant therapy in suboptimal setting (as part of a community-based program using the portable equipment and provided by dental students) on the caries status of school children. This pragmatic split-mouth randomised clinical trial was conducted in rural area of Iran. At baseline, 124 patients, including 185 paired teeth with deep pits and Fissures of opposite quadrants that were either healthy or at early stages of enamel decay (International Caries Detection and Assessment System [ICDAS] 0-2), were randomly allocated to receive Fissure Sealant or acted as control. The incidence of new caries (ICDAS code 3-6) and the Sealant's retention status after 1-year follow-up were evaluated. Using chi-square test, the relative risk (RR) and the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) to prevent new caries were calculated. After 1 year, 109 patients including 163 paired teeth were available. Sixty-seven (41.4%) and 44 (27.2%) teeth had complete and partial retained Sealants respectively. The risk of caries incidence in non-sealed teeth was almost three times more than sealed teeth (RR = 2.88, 95% CI: 1.4-1.97, p = 0.002) and the NNT was 10 (95% CI: 6-26). A significant association was noted between the status of Sealant retention after 1 year and the incidence of new caries (p < 0.001). Fissure Sealant as part of a community-based program was effective in controlling caries incidence.
-
is there a risk of harm or toxicity in the placement of pit and Fissure Sealant materials a systematic review
Journal of The Canadian Dental Association, 2008Co-Authors: Amir Azarpazhooh, Patricia A MainAbstract:Background Recently, there has been increased interest in the in vivo release of dental Sealant components, such as bisphenol A (BPA), which has the potential to bind the estrogen receptors of relevant cells at subtoxic concentrations in vitro, impairing the development, health and reproductive systems of wildlife. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate whether the placement of pit and Fissure Sealant materials causes toxicity, and thus harms patients. Methods The literature search (from the earliest record up to March 2007) for relevant articles was done with Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL and other bibliographic databases. Results A total of 377 articles were identified by the literature search; relevance was determined by examining the title and abstract of the articles. Eleven original studies met the inclusion criteria. These articles were read in full and scored independently by 2 reviewers. Recommendations The evidence suggests that patients are not at risk for exposure to BPA from the use of dental Sealants. To reduce the potential, if any, for BPA toxicity from Sealants, dental providers should use a mild abrasive, such as pumice, either on a cotton applicator or in a prophy cup; have older children and adolescents gargle with tepid water for 30 seconds; or wash the Sealant surface for 30 seconds with an air-water syringe while suctioning fluids and debris from a child"s mouth.
Zahra Khalili - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the effect of er cr ysgg laser and air abrasion on shear bond strength of a Fissure Sealant to enamel
Journal of the American Dental Association, 2010Co-Authors: Masoumeh Moslemi, Leila Erfanparast, Reza Fekrazad, Niko Tadayon, Hamed Dadjo, Mohammad Mostafa Shadkar, Zahra KhaliliAbstract:ABSTRACT Purpose The authors conducted an in vitro study to evaluate the shear bond strength of a Fissure Sealant to enamel pretreated with erbium, chromium: yttrium, scandium, gallium, garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) laser or air abrasion followed by acid etching. Methods The authors sectioned extracted sound premolars mesiodistally and used the buccal and lingual surfaces for experimental analysis. They divided specimens randomly into three groups of 15 each according to the enamel surface pretreatment methods: group A, 37 percent phosphoric acid; group B, air abrasion followed by acid etching with 37 percent phosphoric acid; group C, irradiation with Er, Cr: YSGG laser followed by acid etching with 37 percent phosphoric acid. After applying a bonding system, the authors bonded cylinders of Sealant to the enamel surfaces by using transparent gelatin tubes (0.7 millimeter in diameter and 1 mm in height) and then polymerized them. They stored all specimens in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. They tested shear bond strength by using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm per second. The authors analyzed the data by means of one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer post hoc tests (α = .05). Results The bond strength of group B specimens was statistically higher than those of group A and group C specimens ( P P > .05). Conclusion Pretreatment of enamel surfaces with air abrasion increased the bond strength of Fissure Sealant, but pretreatment with Er, Cr: YSGG laser did not increase the effectiveness of conventional acid etching of enamel in Sealant bonds.
Ceri Hoddell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Fissure seal or fluoride varnish a randomized trial of relative effectiveness
Journal of Dental Research, 2017Co-Authors: Ivor Gordon Chestnutt, Rebecca Playle, Simon Hutchings, Sarah Morgantrimmer, Deborah Fitzsimmons, Nadine Aawar, Lianna Angel, Sharron Derrick, Cheney Drew, Ceri HoddellAbstract:Fissure Sealant (FS) and fluoride varnish (FV) are effective in preventing dental caries when compared with a no-treatment control. However, the relative clinical effectiveness of these interventio...
-
seal or varnish a randomised controlled trial to determine the relative cost and effectiveness of pit and Fissure Sealant and fluoride varnish in preventing dental decay
Health Technology Assessment, 2017Co-Authors: Ivor Gordon Chestnutt, Rebecca Playle, Simon Hutchings, Sarah Morgantrimmer, Deborah Fitzsimmons, Nadine Aawar, Lianna Angel, Sharron Derrick, Cheney Drew, Ceri HoddellAbstract:Background Fissure Sealant (FS) and fluoride varnish (FV) have been shown to be effective in preventing dental caries when tested against a no-treatment control. However, the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these interventions is unknown. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FS and FV in preventing dental caries in first permanent molars (FPMs) in 6- and 7-year-olds and to determine their acceptability. Design A randomised controlled allocation-blinded clinical trial with two parallel arms. Setting A targeted population programme using mobile dental clinics (MDCs) in schools located in areas of high social and economic deprivation in South Wales. Participants In total, 1016 children were randomised, but one parent subsequently withdrew permission and so the analysis was based on 1015 children. The randomisation of participants was stratified by school and balanced for sex and primary dentition baseline caries levels using minimisation in a 1 : 1 ratio for treatments. A random component was added to the minimisation algorithm, such that it was not completely deterministic. Of the participants, 514 were randomised to receive FS and 502 were randomised to receive FV. Interventions Resin-based FS was applied to caries-free FPMs and maintained at 6-monthly intervals. FV was applied at baseline and at 6-month intervals over the course of 3 years. Main outcome measures The proportion of children developing caries into dentine (decayed, missing, filled teeth in permanent dentition, i.e. D4–6MFT) on any one of up to four treated FPMs after 36 months. The assessors were blinded to treatment allocation; however, the presence or absence of FS at assessment would obviously indicate the probable treatment received. Economic measures established the costs and budget impact of FS and FV and the relative cost-effectiveness of these technologies. Qualitative interviews determined the acceptability of the interventions. Results At 36 months, 835 (82%) children remained in the trial: 417 in the FS arm and 418 in the FV arm. The proportion of children who developed caries into dentine on a least one FPM was lower in the FV arm (73; 17.5%) than in the FS arm (82, 19.6%) [odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.21; p = 0.35] but the difference was not statistically significant. The results were similar when the numbers of newly decayed teeth (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.22) and tooth surfaces (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.21) were examined. Trial fidelity was high: 95% of participants received five or six of the six scheduled treatments. Between 74% and 93% of Sealants (upper and lower teeth) were intact at 36 months. The costs of the two technologies showed a small but statistically significant difference; the mean cost to the NHS (including intervention costs) per child was £500 for FS, compared with £432 for FV, a difference of £68.13 (95% CI £5.63 to £130.63; p = 0.033) in favour of FV. The budget impact analysis suggests that there is a cost saving of £68.13 (95% CI £5.63 to £130.63; p = 0.033) per child treated if using FV compared with the application of FS over this time period. An acceptability score completed by the children immediately after treatment and subsequent interviews demonstrated that both interventions were acceptable to the children. No adverse effects were reported. Limitations There are no important limitations to this study. Conclusions In a community oral health programme utilising MDCs and targeted at children with high caries risk, the twice-yearly application of FV resulted in caries prevention that is not significantly different from that obtained by applying and maintaining FSs after 36 months. FV proved less expensive. Future work The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FS and FV following the cessation of active intervention merits investigation.
Liwei Zheng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison between Fissure Sealant and fluoride varnish on caries prevention for first permanent molars a systematic review and meta analysis
Scientific Reports, 2020Co-Authors: Peipei Jiang, Jing Zou, Xuedong Zhou, Liwei ZhengAbstract:The high prevalence and heavy socio-economic burden for caries of first permanent molars (FPMs) make the prevention of this disease a major public health goal. Current guidelines recommend a preference of Fissure Sealant (FS) over fluoride varnish (FV) based on two recent systematic reviews. However, evidences of these two studies are weak because of scarce data and some limitations. Besides, an up-to-date large scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) reported commensurate effectiveness of these two techniques. Thus, in order to more accurately compare the clinical efficacy between FS and FV on caries prevention for FPMs, we carried out this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 8 RCTs involving 3289 participants and 6878 FPMs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis for the first time showed that there was no statistical difference on caries incidence or occlusal DMFS increment between Sealant group and fluoride varnish group at 2~3 years' follow-up. In that sense, biannual applications of FV or FS may be equally effective on caries prevention for FPMs. These results do not support routine recommendation of FS over FV, thus shedding light on current conceptions. Our findings endow clinicians with a window to reconsider the choice between these two techniques.
Alireza Sarraf Shirazi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
preparation before acid etching in Fissure Sealant therapy yes or no a systematic review and meta analysis
Journal of the American Dental Association, 2016Co-Authors: Ali Bagherian, Alireza Sarraf ShiraziAbstract:Abstract Background The authors of this systematic review and meta-analysis had 2 aims: to evaluate Fissure Sealant retention with and without the use of a preparation method and to compare Fissure Sealant retention using the preparation-only method before Sealant placement with the conventional acid-etching procedure. Types of Studies Reviewed The authors conducted a literature search (from database inception through June 2, 2016) to identify studies for inclusion in this systematic review. The authors assessed the quality of the evidence with the modified Jadad scale and performed the meta-analysis by using a random-effects model. Results The authors considered 12 studies (8 for the first part and 4 for the second part) that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and meta-analysis. In the analysis of the first part of the systematic review, the authors found that the preparation method before acid etching had a significant positive effect on Fissure Sealant retention (odds ratio, 3.262; 95% confidence interval, 1.782-5.971; P = .001). In the analysis of the second part of the systematic review, the authors found that there were no significant differences between the preparation-only method and the conventional acid-etching method in terms of Fissure Sealant retention (odds ratio, 1.241; 95% confidence interval, 0.534-2.888; P = .616). Conclusions and Practical Implications The use of a preparation method before Fissure Sealant application can increase Sealant retention. However, preparation alone cannot substitute the conventional acid-etching method before Sealant placement.