预成纤维桩和可塑纤维桩修复残根残冠的临床效果对比
|
摘要
目的探讨预成纤维桩和可塑纤维桩修复残根残冠的临床效果差异。方法收集我院接受修复残根残冠的患者,分为:研究组(接受预成纤维桩修复)和对照组(接受可塑纤维桩修复)。对比两组残根残冠修复的治疗效果;两组治疗前后咬牙合力及咀嚼效率;两组残根残冠修复后的并发症情况。结果 :研究组和对照组残根残冠修复的治疗效果分别为92%、76%,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05);两组治疗前咬牙合力及咀嚼效率差异无统计学意义(P> 0.05);研究组治疗后咬牙合力及咀嚼效率高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05);研究组残根残冠修复后发生2例牙根折裂、1例桩核松动、1例冠松动,对照组残根残冠修复后发生3例牙根折裂、2例桩核松动、3例冠松动及4例牙龈炎反应,研究组并发症发生率为8%,对照组为24%,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)。结论与可塑纤维桩修复残根残冠相比,预成纤维桩治疗疗效肯定,患者获得的咬牙合力及咀嚼效率高,术后并发症发生率低。
Objective To investigate the difference of the clinical effects between pre-fibrous piles and plastic fiber piles in repairing residual root and crown. Methods Patients who underwent repair of residual roots in our hospital were enrolled in the study group(received by pre-fibrous pile repair) and the control group(received by plastic fiber repair). The therapeutic effects of the two groups of residual root and crown restoration were compared. The occlusal force and chewing efficiency before and after treatment were compared. The complications of the two groups after residual root and crown restoration were compared. Results The treatment effects of residual root and crown restoration in the study group and the control group were 92% and76%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the occlusal force and chewing efficiency of the two groups before treatment(P>0.05). The occlusal force and chewing efficiency of the study group were higher than those of the control group after treatment, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). There were 2 cases of root fracture, 1 case of loosening of the post core and 1 case of loosening of the crown after repairing the residual root and crown occurred in the study group. There were 3 cases of root fracture, 2 cases of loosening of the post core, 3 cases of loosening of the crown and 4 cases of gingivitis occurred in the control group. The complication rate was 8% in the study group and 24% in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant(P <0.05). Conclusion Compared with plastic fiber piles in repairing residual crowns, the pre-fibril pile treatment is more effective. The patient has highocclusal force and chewing efficiency, and the postoperative complications are low.
Objective To investigate the difference of the clinical effects between pre-fibrous piles and plastic fiber piles in repairing residual root and crown. Methods Patients who underwent repair of residual roots in our hospital were enrolled in the study group(received by pre-fibrous pile repair) and the control group(received by plastic fiber repair). The therapeutic effects of the two groups of residual root and crown restoration were compared. The occlusal force and chewing efficiency before and after treatment were compared. The complications of the two groups after residual root and crown restoration were compared. Results The treatment effects of residual root and crown restoration in the study group and the control group were 92% and76%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the occlusal force and chewing efficiency of the two groups before treatment(P>0.05). The occlusal force and chewing efficiency of the study group were higher than those of the control group after treatment, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). There were 2 cases of root fracture, 1 case of loosening of the post core and 1 case of loosening of the crown after repairing the residual root and crown occurred in the study group. There were 3 cases of root fracture, 2 cases of loosening of the post core, 3 cases of loosening of the crown and 4 cases of gingivitis occurred in the control group. The complication rate was 8% in the study group and 24% in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant(P <0.05). Conclusion Compared with plastic fiber piles in repairing residual crowns, the pre-fibril pile treatment is more effective. The patient has highocclusal force and chewing efficiency, and the postoperative complications are low.
引文
[1]赵飞,朱晶,刘新峰,等.牙本质肩领及桩的长度对老年人前磨牙残根残冠修复效果的影响[J].中华老年口腔医学杂志,2016,14(1):26-30.
[2]何平.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治疗后残冠的生存率和并发症对比[J].河北医药,2016,38(23):3622-3624.
[3]徐革英,米振林.金属桩和纤维桩用于前牙残根残冠修复的比较研究[J].中国现代医学杂志,2016,26(18):100-103.
[4]黄飞.玻璃纤维桩与铸造金属桩核修复前牙残根残冠的临床疗效对比[J].医学综述,2016,22(9):1833-1835.
[5]胡芳,李健.插销式二氧化锆铸瓷分裂桩修复老年人后牙残根残冠[J].长春中医药大学学报,2016,32(6):1255-1256.
[6]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):285-287.
[7]张海元.玻璃纤维桩核与铸造金属桩核治疗残根残冠的临床效果比较[J].全科口腔医学电子杂志,2018,5(15):1-2.
[8]张存莉,吴进.两种口腔纤维桩修复残根残冠的应用效果及对咀嚼功能的影响[J].临床医学研究与实践,2018,3(9):99-100.
[9]王文洁.一体化自粘接核树脂纤维桩修复残根残冠的临床体会[J].山西职工医学院学报,2017,27(6):46-48.
[10]卢峰泽,吕鑫,赵桂琴,等.预成纤维桩与可塑纤维桩修复残根残冠的临床效果研究[J].基层医学论坛,2018,22(2):279-280.
[11]杨招团.玻璃纤维桩在前牙残根残冠美容修复中的应用(附46例临床分析)讨论[J].临床医药文献电子杂志,2017,4(A4):20447,20450.
[12]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(06):1164-1165.
[13]夏睿.玻璃纤维桩复合树脂联合修复残根残冠临床效果分析[J].医学理论与实践,2017,30(21):3218-3219.
[2]何平.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治疗后残冠的生存率和并发症对比[J].河北医药,2016,38(23):3622-3624.
[3]徐革英,米振林.金属桩和纤维桩用于前牙残根残冠修复的比较研究[J].中国现代医学杂志,2016,26(18):100-103.
[4]黄飞.玻璃纤维桩与铸造金属桩核修复前牙残根残冠的临床疗效对比[J].医学综述,2016,22(9):1833-1835.
[5]胡芳,李健.插销式二氧化锆铸瓷分裂桩修复老年人后牙残根残冠[J].长春中医药大学学报,2016,32(6):1255-1256.
[6]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):285-287.
[7]张海元.玻璃纤维桩核与铸造金属桩核治疗残根残冠的临床效果比较[J].全科口腔医学电子杂志,2018,5(15):1-2.
[8]张存莉,吴进.两种口腔纤维桩修复残根残冠的应用效果及对咀嚼功能的影响[J].临床医学研究与实践,2018,3(9):99-100.
[9]王文洁.一体化自粘接核树脂纤维桩修复残根残冠的临床体会[J].山西职工医学院学报,2017,27(6):46-48.
[10]卢峰泽,吕鑫,赵桂琴,等.预成纤维桩与可塑纤维桩修复残根残冠的临床效果研究[J].基层医学论坛,2018,22(2):279-280.
[11]杨招团.玻璃纤维桩在前牙残根残冠美容修复中的应用(附46例临床分析)讨论[J].临床医药文献电子杂志,2017,4(A4):20447,20450.
[12]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(06):1164-1165.
[13]夏睿.玻璃纤维桩复合树脂联合修复残根残冠临床效果分析[J].医学理论与实践,2017,30(21):3218-3219.