European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025
Sealant retention, patient satisfaction, and operator preference: a split-mouth randomised controlled trial comparing EasyPrep® and cotton roll isolation in a dental school setting.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kornkrasunk W, Manmontri C, Chompu-Inwai P, Nirunsittirat A, Tangtrakooljaroen W, Thiangjai B, Boonphirom P, Arjitpunyo S, Chaipattanawan N
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare sealant retention, patient satisfaction, and operator preference between EasyPrep® and cotton roll isolation.
METHODS: This university-based, superiority, split-mouth randomised controlled trial enrolled 92 children aged 6-12 years with matched contralateral pairs of maxillary or mandibular permanent first molars (PFMs). Each participant was randomised to receive sealants using either EasyPrep® or cotton roll isolation on one side, followed by the alternative method on the contralateral side. All sealants were placed by dental students under the faculty supervision and were assessed for retention by two blinded examiners at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Sealant retention success was compared between groups using risk regression with generalised estimating equations. Patient satisfaction and operator preference were assessed through interview-based questionnaires and summarised using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Of the 180 pairs of PFMs included at baseline, 155 and 110 were evaluated at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. The relative risks of sealant retention success with EasyPrep® compared to cotton roll isolation were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83; 1.09, p > 0.05) at 6 months and 0.96 (95% CI 0.76; 1.23, p > 0.05) at 12 months. These results indicate a slightly lower probability of retention success with EasyPrep® at both time points, although the differences were not statistically significant. Moreover, children tended to prefer cotton roll isolation (44.6%), whereas operators favoured EasyPrep® (59.8%).
CONCLUSION: Although most operators preferred EasyPrep®, its sealant retention was not superior to that of cotton roll isolation. Moreover, patients' preference was more toward cotton roll isolation.
METHODS: This university-based, superiority, split-mouth randomised controlled trial enrolled 92 children aged 6-12 years with matched contralateral pairs of maxillary or mandibular permanent first molars (PFMs). Each participant was randomised to receive sealants using either EasyPrep® or cotton roll isolation on one side, followed by the alternative method on the contralateral side. All sealants were placed by dental students under the faculty supervision and were assessed for retention by two blinded examiners at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Sealant retention success was compared between groups using risk regression with generalised estimating equations. Patient satisfaction and operator preference were assessed through interview-based questionnaires and summarised using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Of the 180 pairs of PFMs included at baseline, 155 and 110 were evaluated at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. The relative risks of sealant retention success with EasyPrep® compared to cotton roll isolation were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83; 1.09, p > 0.05) at 6 months and 0.96 (95% CI 0.76; 1.23, p > 0.05) at 12 months. These results indicate a slightly lower probability of retention success with EasyPrep® at both time points, although the differences were not statistically significant. Moreover, children tended to prefer cotton roll isolation (44.6%), whereas operators favoured EasyPrep® (59.8%).
CONCLUSION: Although most operators preferred EasyPrep®, its sealant retention was not superior to that of cotton roll isolation. Moreover, patients' preference was more toward cotton roll isolation.