【摘要】 目的:比较不同材料进行磨牙Ⅱ类洞嵌体修复后的临床效果。方法:选取2014年1月~2015年10月来我院治疗的85例(共计90颗患牙)磨牙Ⅱ类洞缺损的患者。根据采用嵌体修复材料不同分为3组,全瓷嵌体(A组)28例,树脂嵌体(B组)29例及金属嵌体(C组)28例,每组均30颗牙。分别观察3组患者临床效果、嵌体修复效果,包括脱落、碎裂和继发龋。结果:A组患者成功率为93.33%,明显高于B组成功率80.0%和C组成功率73.33%,且差异均有统计学意义(χ2=4.394,6.480,P均<0.05);B组成功率明显高于C组,差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.012,P<0.05);A组患者修复6个月后、18个月后完整度、边缘着色、边缘合适度、颜色匹配性等临床指标明显优于B组和C组,且差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);B组患者修复6个月后、18个月后完整度、边缘着色、边缘合适度、颜色匹配性等临床指标明显优于C组,且差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);A组患者嵌体脱落和继发龋发生率明显低于B组和C组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);A组患者嵌体碎裂率高于B组和C组,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:磨牙Ⅱ类洞全瓷嵌体修复可获得更好的临床效果,且成功率高,值得临床推广。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective: To compare the effect of different materials for inlay restoration of second-type hole molars.Methods: From January 2015 to January 2016,85 patients( 90 teeth) with type Ⅱ cavities were treated. Group A with all-ceramic inlays of 28 cases,group B with resin inlays of 29 cases and group C with metal inlays of 28 cases,that were selected to observe the clinical effect of three groups were evaluated statistically. Results: The success rate of group A was 93. 33%,which was significantly higher than that of group B( 80. 0%) and group C( 73. 33%),and the differences were statistically significant( P < 0. 05). In group A,after 6 and 18 months,the degree of intactness,edge coloring,margin suitability,secondary caries and color were significantly better than in group B and C( P < 0. 05). In group B,after 6 and 18 months,the clinical signs such as integrity,edge coloring,margin suitability and post-operation were significantly better than those in group C.Conclusion: All-ceramic restoration of the second type of molars can achieve better edge closure effect,and the success rate is high,which can be promotion in clinic.更多还原