【摘要】 目的比较硅酸锂全瓷高嵌体与金属高嵌体修复后牙牙体缺损的临床疗效。方法搜集2015年1月至12月在安徽医科大学附属口腔医院诊治的牙体缺损患者68例,75颗患牙均采用高嵌体修复,其中49颗患牙采用硅酸锂全瓷高嵌体修复(硅酸锂组),26颗患牙采用金属高嵌体修复(金属组)。修复1年后随访检查牙龈健康状况、修复体完整度、继发龋、固位、边缘适合度、邻面的接触点。结果两组患者牙龈健康状况、修复体完整度、继发龋、固位、基牙松动、边缘适合度的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但在邻面接触点指标上,硅酸锂组成功率仅为77.55%,金属组成功率为96.15%,两组差异有统计学意义(P=0.036)。结论硅酸锂全瓷高嵌体是一种可行的修复方式,但是邻面接触点的恢复与保持较金属高嵌体稍差。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To compare the clinical effect between lithium disilicate onlay and metal onlay treatment for posterior tooth defect. Methods The patients treated with lithium disilicate or metal onlay in Stomatological Hospital of Anhui Medical University in 2015 were recruited in the study. There were 49 cases of lithium silicate onlay and 26 cases of metal onlay. After 1-ear placement,clinical evaluations were performed on gingival health,integrity of the restoration,secondary caries,retention,marginal integrity and proximal contact.Results There were no significant differences in gingival health,integrity of the restoration,secondary caries,retention,and marginal integrity between lithium disilicate onlay and metal onlay treatment. There was significant difference in proximal contact between the two groups( P = 0. 036). The success rate of lithium silicate onlay was only 77. 55%,while that of metal onlay was 96. 15%. Conclusion It is feasible to restore posterior tooth defect with lithium disilicate onlay treatment. However,the proximal contact tightness of lithium disilicate onlay is slightly lower than that of metal onlay.更多还原