玻璃纤维桩与金属桩核修复外力导致牙体损伤的比较
|
摘要
背景:目前临床多使用玻璃纤维桩或金属桩核修复牙体损伤,2种治疗方法均可取得理想的修复效果。目的:对比金属桩和玻璃纤维桩核修复牙体损伤的效果。方法:选择湖北职业技术学院附属惠济医院收治的牙体损伤患者112例,其中男52例,女60例,年龄27-74岁,将单号入院者划为对照组(n=56),采用金属桩核进行修复;将双号入院者划为观察组(n=56),采用玻璃纤维桩进行牙体修复。记录治疗期间两组不良反应发生情况,包括牙龈炎、桩核折断、全冠松动、牙龈着色、桩核松动等;治疗完成后1周,对比两组修复总有效率;随访3年后,观察修复体边缘适合性、修复完整性及颜色匹配度等;随访3年后,检测两组牙周碱性磷酸酶水平。试验通过湖北职业技术学院附属惠济医院伦理委员会批准,批准号:20150810321。结果与结论:(1)对照组牙龈炎、桩核折断、全冠松动、牙龈着色、冠折或根折及庄核松动的发生率明显高于观察组(对照组:8.9%,5.3%,7.1%,5.3%,7.1%,8.9%;观察组:3.5%,1.7%,3.5%,1.7%,3.5%,1.7%,P <0.05);(2)对照组牙体修复总有效率低于观察组(39.29%,85.7%,P <0.05);(3)观察组的修复完整性及颜色匹配度均优于对照组(对照组:80.3%,78.5%;观察组:98.2%,94.6%,P<0.05);两组修复体边缘适合性比较无差异(P> 0.05);(4)对照组修复后的碱性磷酸水平高于修复前(P <0.05),观察组修复前后的碱性磷酸酶水平无变化(P> 0.05),观察组修复后的碱性磷酸酶水平低于对照组(P <0.05);(5)结果表明,应用玻璃纤维桩修复牙体损伤的整体效果明显优于金属桩核。
BACKGROUND: Glass fiber post or metal post and core are currently used to repair dental injury in the clinic.Both methods can achieve ideal repairing effect.OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of glass fiber post and metal post and core on repairing dental injuries.METHODS: 112 patients with dental injury were selected, including 52 males and 60 females, aged 27-74 years. The patients with odd numbers provided at admission were assigned to the control group(n=56) and received dental repair by metal post and core, and those with even numbers were assigned to the observation group(n=56) and received dental repair with glass fiber post. The incidence of adverse reactions during treatment was recorded, including gingivitis, post and core fracture, crown loosening, gingival staining, post and core loosening. The total effective rate was compared between the two groups 1 week after treatment. The marginal fitness, restoration integrity,and color matching of the two groups were observed at 3 years of follow-up. The levels of periodontal alkaline phosphatase were measured at3 years of follow-up. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Huiji Hospital Affiliated to Hubei Vocational and Technical College of China(approval No. 20150810321)RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The incidences of gingivitis, post and core fracture, crown loosening, gingival staining, crown or root fracture and post and core loosening in the control group were significantly higher than those in the observation group(control group: 8.9%, 5.3%,7.1%, 5.3%, 7.1%, 8.9%; observation group: 3.5%, 1.7%, 3.5%, 1.7%, 3.5%, 1.7%, P < 0.05). The total effective rate of dental repair in the control group was significantly lower than that in the observation group(39.29%, 85.7%, P < 0.05). The repair integrity and color matching in the observation group were better than those in the control group(control group: 80.3%, 78.5%; observation group: 98.2%, 94.6%, P < 0.05);and there was no difference in the marginal fitness between the two groups(P > 0.05). In the control group, alkaline phosphatase level was significantly higher after dental repair than that before repair(P < 0.05). In the observation group, alkaline phosphatase level did not change after dental repair compared with before dental repair(P > 0.05). The alkaline phosphatase level in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group(P < 0.05). The results suggest that the overall effect of glass fiber post in repairing dental injury was superior to that of metal post and core.
BACKGROUND: Glass fiber post or metal post and core are currently used to repair dental injury in the clinic.Both methods can achieve ideal repairing effect.OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of glass fiber post and metal post and core on repairing dental injuries.METHODS: 112 patients with dental injury were selected, including 52 males and 60 females, aged 27-74 years. The patients with odd numbers provided at admission were assigned to the control group(n=56) and received dental repair by metal post and core, and those with even numbers were assigned to the observation group(n=56) and received dental repair with glass fiber post. The incidence of adverse reactions during treatment was recorded, including gingivitis, post and core fracture, crown loosening, gingival staining, post and core loosening. The total effective rate was compared between the two groups 1 week after treatment. The marginal fitness, restoration integrity,and color matching of the two groups were observed at 3 years of follow-up. The levels of periodontal alkaline phosphatase were measured at3 years of follow-up. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Huiji Hospital Affiliated to Hubei Vocational and Technical College of China(approval No. 20150810321)RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The incidences of gingivitis, post and core fracture, crown loosening, gingival staining, crown or root fracture and post and core loosening in the control group were significantly higher than those in the observation group(control group: 8.9%, 5.3%,7.1%, 5.3%, 7.1%, 8.9%; observation group: 3.5%, 1.7%, 3.5%, 1.7%, 3.5%, 1.7%, P < 0.05). The total effective rate of dental repair in the control group was significantly lower than that in the observation group(39.29%, 85.7%, P < 0.05). The repair integrity and color matching in the observation group were better than those in the control group(control group: 80.3%, 78.5%; observation group: 98.2%, 94.6%, P < 0.05);and there was no difference in the marginal fitness between the two groups(P > 0.05). In the control group, alkaline phosphatase level was significantly higher after dental repair than that before repair(P < 0.05). In the observation group, alkaline phosphatase level did not change after dental repair compared with before dental repair(P > 0.05). The alkaline phosphatase level in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group(P < 0.05). The results suggest that the overall effect of glass fiber post in repairing dental injury was superior to that of metal post and core.
引文
[1]魏丽君,曹均凯,赵迪.玻璃纤维桩与铸造金属桩在老年患者前牙修复中的临床效果观察[J].中华老年多器官疾病杂志,2016,15(4):270-273.
[2]黄会杰,钱江松,方燕红,等.玻璃纤维桩与金属桩在口腔残根修复中的效果比较[J].广东医学,2017,38(4):592-593.
[3]郭瑞生.玻璃纤维桩核修复57例磨牙大面积牙体缺损的临床疗效观察[J].泰山医学院学报,2016,37(4):407-409.
[4]谭忠荣,陈丽,谢三祥,等.牙体大面积缺损修复中玻璃纤维桩与双固化桩核材料联合制作桩核的应用[J].基因组学与应用生物学,2016,35(9):2280-2285.
[5]Mohammad J,Jayachandran M,Rethi M,et al.Effectiveness of Platelet Rich Plasma and Bone Graft in the Treatment of Intrabony Defects:A Clinico-radiographic Study.Open Dent J.2018;12(1):133-154.
[6]Wen Y,Zhang Z,Zhang Y,et al.Redundancy Analysis of Capacitance Data of a Coplanar Electrode Array for Fast and Stable Imaging Processing.Sensors.2018;18(1):31.
[7]Tang T,Wu L,Gao S,et al.Universal Effectiveness of Inducing Magnetic Moments in Graphene by Amino-Type sp3-Defects.Materials.2018;11(4):616.
[8]Clara C,Michele B,Giulio C,et al.Neural Restoration Training improves visual functions and expands visual field of patients with homonymous visual field defects.Restor Neurol Neurosci.2018;36(2):275-291.
[9]刘红.纤维桩与金属桩核在修复大面积牙体缺损中的临床效果观察[J].中国医药指南,2018,16(11):9-11.
[10]向华居.玻璃纤维桩与金属桩核修复牙体缺损的比较[J].中国保健营养,2016,5(2):112-112.
[11]Frank RM,Cotter EJ,Strauss EJ,et al.The Utility of Biologics,Osteotomy,and Cartilage Restoration in the Knee.J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2018;26(1):e11-e25.
[12]淳丽娜.玻璃纤维桩核与铸造金属桩核修复磨牙牙体缺损的对比研究[J].现代实用医学,2016,28(1):101-103.
[13]Pierre L,Cameron B,Padraig E,et al.Treatment of calvarial defects by resorbable and non-resorbable sonic activated polymer pins and mouldable titanium mesh in two dogs:a case report.BMC Vet Res.2018;14(1):199-204.
[14]孔德让.玻璃纤维桩和铸造金属桩修复牙体缺损的效果对比[J].中国组织工程研究,2015,19(16):2540-2544.
[15]Tao T,Liting W,Shengqing G,et al.Universal Effectiveness of Inducing Magnetic Moments in Graphene by Amino-Type sp3-Defects.Materials.2018;11(4):616-620.
[16]苏比力·吐尔逊江,麦合甫孜·艾山,迪丽努尔·阿吉,等.不同牙体剩余量及根尖封闭量对铸造桩修复后牙根抗力及断裂部位的影响[J].陕西医学杂志,2017,15(6):144-147.
[17]丁钰,张莹,付建军,等.不同修复方式对儿童乳牙牙体缺损的疗效和安全性比较[J].现代生物医学进展,2017,36(26):144-147.
[18]纪建新.根管疗法联合聚合瓷嵌体修复治疗后牙体缺损62例疗效观察[J].陕西医学杂志,2017,46(9):1262-1263.
[19]肖燕,沈凯奇,郭嘉,等.纤维桩修复不同形态上颌尖牙根管的动力学与疲劳分析[J].口腔医学研究,2017,33(8):860-864.
[20]Torres-Sánchez C,Montoya-Salazar V,Córdoba P.Fractureresistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiberreinforced posts and cast gold post and cores cemented with threecements.J Prosthet Dent.2013;110(2):127-133.
[21]徐波,白真玉.玻璃纤维桩核与铸造金属桩核修复残根残冠及无桩修复根管的临床疗效对比[J].浙江创伤外科,2017,22(6):1164-1165.
[22]Rippe MP,Santini MF,Bier CA,et al.Effect of root canal preparation,type of endodontic post and mechanical cycling on root fracture strength.J Appl Oral Sci.2014;22(3):165-173.
[23]陈衍亮.金属桩与玻璃纤维桩对老年上颌前牙残根残冠修复的临床疗效比较[J].中国冶金工业医学杂志,2018,35(3):43-45.
[24]印奇志.纤维桩核冠和铸造金属桩核冠在后牙牙体大面积缺损修复中的应用[J].安徽医药,2017,21(1):91-93.
[25]洪席超,李懿,文静.3种纤维桩修复前牙抗折力的研究[J].实用医学杂志,2018,34(9):90-92,108.
[26]李树朝.玻璃纤维桩树脂核和金属铸造桩核在上颌前牙残根残冠修复中的临床疗效对比[J].现代口腔医学杂志,2017,31(3):180-182.
[27]刘林,甘抗,王艺婷,等.两种桩核系统修复剩余不同数目侧壁残冠的抗折性研究[J].口腔颌面修复学杂志,2018,19(2):65-69.
[28]周江保.纤维桩和个性化氧化锆桩在上颌前牙修复的临床对照研究[J].临床口腔医学杂志,2018,34(7):423-424.
[29]王程.玻璃纤维桩与金属桩核修复牙体缺损的比较[J].全科口腔医学电子杂志,2016,3(6):36-37.
[30]Chiang CW,Wang Y,Sun P,et al.Quantifying white matter tract diffusion parameters in the presence of increased extra-fiber cellularity and vasogenic edema.NeuroImage.2014;101(25):310-319.
[31]赵延嗣.玻璃纤维桩与铸造金属桩在牙体缺损修复中的应用效果分析[J].首都食品与医药,2018,25(1):11-12.
[32]郭会平.两种桩核冠修复体治疗牙体缺损的临床效果观察[J].中国医疗美容,2017,7(1):50-52.
[33]王慧云.玻璃纤维桩与金属桩核修复牙体缺损的效果比较[J].世界最新医学信息文摘,2017,17(57):49-57.
[34]Missig G,Mei L,Vizzard MA,et al.Parabrachial Pituitary Adenylate Cyclase-Activating Polypeptide Activation of Amygdala Endosomal Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase Signaling Regulates the Emotional Component of Pain.Biol Psychiatry.2017;81(8):671-682.
[35]杨芬.前牙牙体修复中使用玻璃纤维桩和铸造金属桩的效果对比[J].临床医学工程,2017,24(3):367-368.
[2]黄会杰,钱江松,方燕红,等.玻璃纤维桩与金属桩在口腔残根修复中的效果比较[J].广东医学,2017,38(4):592-593.
[3]郭瑞生.玻璃纤维桩核修复57例磨牙大面积牙体缺损的临床疗效观察[J].泰山医学院学报,2016,37(4):407-409.
[4]谭忠荣,陈丽,谢三祥,等.牙体大面积缺损修复中玻璃纤维桩与双固化桩核材料联合制作桩核的应用[J].基因组学与应用生物学,2016,35(9):2280-2285.
[5]Mohammad J,Jayachandran M,Rethi M,et al.Effectiveness of Platelet Rich Plasma and Bone Graft in the Treatment of Intrabony Defects:A Clinico-radiographic Study.Open Dent J.2018;12(1):133-154.
[6]Wen Y,Zhang Z,Zhang Y,et al.Redundancy Analysis of Capacitance Data of a Coplanar Electrode Array for Fast and Stable Imaging Processing.Sensors.2018;18(1):31.
[7]Tang T,Wu L,Gao S,et al.Universal Effectiveness of Inducing Magnetic Moments in Graphene by Amino-Type sp3-Defects.Materials.2018;11(4):616.
[8]Clara C,Michele B,Giulio C,et al.Neural Restoration Training improves visual functions and expands visual field of patients with homonymous visual field defects.Restor Neurol Neurosci.2018;36(2):275-291.
[9]刘红.纤维桩与金属桩核在修复大面积牙体缺损中的临床效果观察[J].中国医药指南,2018,16(11):9-11.
[10]向华居.玻璃纤维桩与金属桩核修复牙体缺损的比较[J].中国保健营养,2016,5(2):112-112.
[11]Frank RM,Cotter EJ,Strauss EJ,et al.The Utility of Biologics,Osteotomy,and Cartilage Restoration in the Knee.J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2018;26(1):e11-e25.
[12]淳丽娜.玻璃纤维桩核与铸造金属桩核修复磨牙牙体缺损的对比研究[J].现代实用医学,2016,28(1):101-103.
[13]Pierre L,Cameron B,Padraig E,et al.Treatment of calvarial defects by resorbable and non-resorbable sonic activated polymer pins and mouldable titanium mesh in two dogs:a case report.BMC Vet Res.2018;14(1):199-204.
[14]孔德让.玻璃纤维桩和铸造金属桩修复牙体缺损的效果对比[J].中国组织工程研究,2015,19(16):2540-2544.
[15]Tao T,Liting W,Shengqing G,et al.Universal Effectiveness of Inducing Magnetic Moments in Graphene by Amino-Type sp3-Defects.Materials.2018;11(4):616-620.
[16]苏比力·吐尔逊江,麦合甫孜·艾山,迪丽努尔·阿吉,等.不同牙体剩余量及根尖封闭量对铸造桩修复后牙根抗力及断裂部位的影响[J].陕西医学杂志,2017,15(6):144-147.
[17]丁钰,张莹,付建军,等.不同修复方式对儿童乳牙牙体缺损的疗效和安全性比较[J].现代生物医学进展,2017,36(26):144-147.
[18]纪建新.根管疗法联合聚合瓷嵌体修复治疗后牙体缺损62例疗效观察[J].陕西医学杂志,2017,46(9):1262-1263.
[19]肖燕,沈凯奇,郭嘉,等.纤维桩修复不同形态上颌尖牙根管的动力学与疲劳分析[J].口腔医学研究,2017,33(8):860-864.
[20]Torres-Sánchez C,Montoya-Salazar V,Córdoba P.Fractureresistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiberreinforced posts and cast gold post and cores cemented with threecements.J Prosthet Dent.2013;110(2):127-133.
[21]徐波,白真玉.玻璃纤维桩核与铸造金属桩核修复残根残冠及无桩修复根管的临床疗效对比[J].浙江创伤外科,2017,22(6):1164-1165.
[22]Rippe MP,Santini MF,Bier CA,et al.Effect of root canal preparation,type of endodontic post and mechanical cycling on root fracture strength.J Appl Oral Sci.2014;22(3):165-173.
[23]陈衍亮.金属桩与玻璃纤维桩对老年上颌前牙残根残冠修复的临床疗效比较[J].中国冶金工业医学杂志,2018,35(3):43-45.
[24]印奇志.纤维桩核冠和铸造金属桩核冠在后牙牙体大面积缺损修复中的应用[J].安徽医药,2017,21(1):91-93.
[25]洪席超,李懿,文静.3种纤维桩修复前牙抗折力的研究[J].实用医学杂志,2018,34(9):90-92,108.
[26]李树朝.玻璃纤维桩树脂核和金属铸造桩核在上颌前牙残根残冠修复中的临床疗效对比[J].现代口腔医学杂志,2017,31(3):180-182.
[27]刘林,甘抗,王艺婷,等.两种桩核系统修复剩余不同数目侧壁残冠的抗折性研究[J].口腔颌面修复学杂志,2018,19(2):65-69.
[28]周江保.纤维桩和个性化氧化锆桩在上颌前牙修复的临床对照研究[J].临床口腔医学杂志,2018,34(7):423-424.
[29]王程.玻璃纤维桩与金属桩核修复牙体缺损的比较[J].全科口腔医学电子杂志,2016,3(6):36-37.
[30]Chiang CW,Wang Y,Sun P,et al.Quantifying white matter tract diffusion parameters in the presence of increased extra-fiber cellularity and vasogenic edema.NeuroImage.2014;101(25):310-319.
[31]赵延嗣.玻璃纤维桩与铸造金属桩在牙体缺损修复中的应用效果分析[J].首都食品与医药,2018,25(1):11-12.
[32]郭会平.两种桩核冠修复体治疗牙体缺损的临床效果观察[J].中国医疗美容,2017,7(1):50-52.
[33]王慧云.玻璃纤维桩与金属桩核修复牙体缺损的效果比较[J].世界最新医学信息文摘,2017,17(57):49-57.
[34]Missig G,Mei L,Vizzard MA,et al.Parabrachial Pituitary Adenylate Cyclase-Activating Polypeptide Activation of Amygdala Endosomal Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase Signaling Regulates the Emotional Component of Pain.Biol Psychiatry.2017;81(8):671-682.
[35]杨芬.前牙牙体修复中使用玻璃纤维桩和铸造金属桩的效果对比[J].临床医学工程,2017,24(3):367-368.