1. |
Asefi S, Eskandarion S, Hamidiaval S. Fissure sealant materials: wear resistance of flowable composite resins. Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect, 2016, 10(3): 194-199.
|
2. |
Bhushan U, Goswami M. Evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealants placed with and without air abrasion pretreatment in 6-8 year old children-an in vivo study. J Clin Exp Dent, 2017, 9(2): 211-217.
|
3. |
Martin LS, Huertos-Marchante A, Galvan-Martos J, et al. Dental sealant knowledge, opinion, values and practice of Spanish dental hygienists. BMC Oral Health, 2017, 15(1): 46-52.
|
4. |
刘怡然, 吴晓晗, 周红艳, 等. 第一恒磨牙窝沟封闭 3 年临床效果观察. 口腔医学, 2016, 36(8): 749-752.
|
5. |
谢妮娜, 宋文婷, 魏路明, 等. 磷酸酸蚀结合流动树脂对年轻恒牙窝沟封闭的疗效分析. 口腔医学, 2015, 35(12): 1045-1048.
|
6. |
张元, 周洲, 于金华. 流动树脂的研究进展. 口腔医学, 2016, 36(5): 475-477.
|
7. |
Jafarzadeh M, Malekafzali B, Tadayon N, et al. Retention of aflowable composite resin in comparison to a conventional resinbasedsealant: one-year follow-up. J Dent, 2010, 7(1): 1-5.
|
8. |
史艳芬, 刘伟伟, 刘雪. 年轻恒牙应用不同窝沟封闭材料临床观察. 济宁医学院学报, 2015, 38(2): 114-116.
|
9. |
Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2002, 21(11): 1539-1558.
|
10. |
俞少玲, 葛久禹, 杨如美, 等. 两种光固化材料行窝沟封闭术后 3 年临床效果. 广东牙病防治, 2008, 16(10): 448-449.
|
11. |
刘海燕. 窝沟封闭剂与流体树脂的临床应用对比. 中国疗养医学, 2010, 19(8): 732-732.
|
12. |
陈述, 王亚. 流动树脂与窝沟封闭剂对年轻恒牙封闭效果的临床评价. 华北煤炭医学院学报, 2011, 13(6): 812-813.
|
13. |
李相如, 王海滨, 刘爱莲. 自酸蚀粘接剂结合流动树脂对年轻恒牙窝沟封闭的临床评. 口腔医学研究, 2011, 27(7): 603-605.
|
14. |
邱利华. 流体树脂预防性充填和窝沟封闭的临床疗效观察. 临床医学与护理研究, 2011, 10(5): 22-23.
|
15. |
蒲寒秋, 肖世芳, 勾京东. 3M Filtek Z350 流动树脂与 Pekaseal 光固化窝沟封闭剂预防儿童龋病的临床效果研究. 中国医药指南, 2013, 11(9): 39-40.
|
16. |
王跃岩, 高朗. 两种窝沟封闭剂防治儿童龋病的疗效比较. 中国现代医生, 2013, 51(25): 138-139.
|
17. |
张志银. 流体树脂预防性充填防龋疗效观察. 航空航天医学杂志, 2014, 25(7): 920-921.
|
18. |
高丹. 光固化流体树脂与可见光固化窝沟封闭剂防治儿童龋病的疗效对比. 临床医学工程, 2014, 21(2): 177-178.
|
19. |
韩静, 于洪波, 焦菲菲. 光固化流体树脂窝沟封闭防龋疗效的评价. 口腔医学, 2016, 36(2): 132-134.
|
20. |
Sundfeld D, Machado LS, Franco LM, et al. Clinical/photographic/scanning electron microscopy analysis of pit and fissure sealants after 22 years: a case series. Oper Dent, 2017, 42(1): 10-18.
|
21. |
Gawali PN, Chaugule VB, Panse AM. Comparison of microleakage and penetration depth between hydrophilic and ydrophobic sealants in primary second molar. Int J Clin Pediatr Den, 2016, 9(4): 291-295.
|
22. |
Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yaman BC, et al .Clinical comparison of a flowable composite and fissure sealant: a 24-month split-mouth, randomized, and controlled study. J Dent, 2013, 42(2): 149-157.
|