摘要
目的:对比分析CAD/CAM全瓷嵌体与复合树脂嵌体修复后牙Ⅱ类洞的临床疗效。方法:选择在解放军总医院口腔内科就诊的后牙Ⅱ类洞患者193例(共226颗牙),根据患者意愿,其中101颗采用CAD/CAM全瓷嵌体修复,其余125颗采用复合树脂嵌体修复,分别在术后6个月、12个月、18个月进行随访,观察其修复体磨耗、折裂、脱落、边缘密合性、边缘着色及继发龋等情况。结果:2种嵌体在修复体磨耗及边缘着色的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),在修复体折裂、修复体脱落、继发龋和边缘密合性的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。CAD/CAM全瓷嵌体的成功率为:96.84%,树脂嵌体的成功率为:81.05%,两组之间成功率的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:在后牙Ⅱ类洞缺损的修复治疗中,CAD/CAM全瓷嵌体的效果优于复合树脂嵌体。
Objective： To compare the clinical efficacy of CAD/CAM all-ceramic inlay and composite resin inlay in restoring Class Ⅱ cavity of posterior teeth. Methods： 226 posterior teeth of ClassⅡ cavity from 193 patients were recruited in our clinical trial. 101 teeth of the selected teeth were restored with CAD/CAM all-ceramic inlays, and the rest was restored by composite resin inlays. Prosthesis abrasion, prosthesis fracture, prosthesis off, marginal adaptation, edge coloring, and secondary caries of the two groups were evaluated during 6-month, 12-month and 18-month follow-up appointments, respectively. Results： There were significant differences in prosthesis abrasion and edge coloring between the two groups（P〈0.05）, but no significant difference was observed in prosthesis off, prosthesis fracture, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries（P〉0.05）. The success rate of CAD/CAM all-ceramic inlay is96.84%, and the composite resin inlay is 81.05%. There was significant difference between the success rates（P〈0.05）. Conclusion： The efficacy of CAD/CAM all-ceramic inlay is better than that of composite resin inlay during the treatment of the posterior ClassⅡ cavities.
出处
《口腔颌面修复学杂志》
2014年第5期301-304,共4页
Chinese Journal of Prosthodontics
