【作者】 李立；

【导师】 傅柏平；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 口腔修复学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 [目的]比较研究不同印模材料和不同的个别托盘设计对无牙颌前牙区牙槽嵴的压力的影响。[方法]1：标定传感器制作两个直径为5mm的塑料圆柱体,将其固定于FSR压力传感器(Arduino, Interlink Electronic Inc,美国)的两面(在压力感应区以内),之后置于万能试验机下(Zwick/Roell, Bz2.5/UNls,德国)进行压力值对应输出电压值的标定。在固定的压力值处读出传感器输出的电压值,一一对应记录下来,重复标定两次。2：制作不同设计的个别托盘采用Ⅱ型树脂基托材料(上海张江生物材料有限公司,上海,中国,批号：100620),按照厂家要求混合调拌,制作4种个别托盘,分别为无孔无缓冲,有孔无缓冲,无孔有缓冲和有孔有缓冲。对于其中的2种有孔型设计的托盘,大孔的直径在6mm左右,位于切牙孔后1cm处；小孔均匀分布于个别托盘前牙区德组织面,孔间间隔在4-7mm之间,直径2mm左右。对于缓冲型设计的个别托盘,托盘与无牙颌模型之间存在一层蜡片的缓冲,大约1.7mm。3：取模及测压将已进行压力值标定的FSR薄膜压力传感器固定于无牙颌模型的前牙区,使用3种印模材料：分别为硅橡胶重体(3M ESPE AG, Seefeld,德国),硅橡胶轻体(3M ESPE AG, Seefeld,德国)和藻酸盐(登士柏,天津,中国)和上述4种个别托盘不同搭配进行取模。将印模材料充填到个别托盘后,由同一研究者采用相同的印模就位速度和方法,先按压托盘就位(约20s),然后撤力使用较小力维持住托盘位置直至材料凝固。每种材料和每种不同设计的托盘重复取模三次,取平均值。间隔10s读数一次,记录下每次取模过程的峰压值和终压值。[结果]对取得的数据采用析因方差分析和Turkey HSD检验,得出结论：对于取模过程中所产生的峰压力,不同的材料和个别托盘产生的压力值存在显著性差异(P<0.01)。使用硅橡胶重体和藻酸盐的压力显著大于硅橡胶轻体(P<0.01)；无孔无缓冲的个别托盘压力值显著大于其余三种托盘设计的压力值(P<0.01),而在托盘上增加排溢孔和缓冲能显著降低取模时前牙区的压力值(P<0.01),且缓冲较排溢孔更能显著减少前牙区取模时的压力值(P<0.01),而无孔有缓冲托盘的压力值与有孔有缓冲的托盘压力值之间不存在差异(P>0.05)。对于终压力,则不同的材料和个别托盘设计产生的压力值不存在显著性差异(P>0.05)。[结论]1：对于材料而言,使用硅橡胶重体和藻酸盐的峰压力显著大于硅橡胶轻体。2：对于个别托盘而言,在托盘上增加排溢孔和缓冲能显著降低取模时前牙区的峰压力值,且缓冲较排溢孔更能显著减少前牙区取模时的峰压力值。3：使用硅橡胶重体和无孔无缓冲的个别托盘的搭配能获得最大的峰压力,使用硅橡胶轻体和有孔有缓冲的个别托盘的搭配能获得最小峰的压力。4：不同材料和不同设计的个别托盘之间的终压力值不存在显著性差异。更多还原

【Abstract】 ObjectivesThe aim of this study evaluated the pressures exerted under a simulated maxillary edentulous analog by different impression materials and differently designed custom trays.Materials and methods1:Calibration of a FSR pressure sensorAfter a FSR pressure sensor (Arduino, Interlink Electronic Inc, USA) had been put between two cylinders with diameter of 5 mm was under universal testing machine (Zwick/Roell, Bz2.5/UNls, Germany) for calibration of the pressure sensor, the pressures exerted by the testing machine and the corresponding output voltage value produced by the pressure sensor were recorded, respectively. The procedures were repeated twice.2:Different customized traysThe type II resin (Shanghai Zhangjiang biomaterial Ltd, Shanghai, China, Lot:100620) was used to fabricate four types of customized trays. The customized tray were prepared with no escape hole/no relief, escape hole/no relief, no escape hole/relief, or escape hole/relief. To customized trays with escape holes, a big hole with diameter of 6 mm was located lcm behind the incisive papilla; small holes with diameter of 2mm were evenly distributed in the anterior area of the analog and the distances between holes were about 4-7mm. To customized trays with relief, a relief spacer of about 1.7 mm was between maxillary edentulous analog and customized trays.3:Impression taken and Pressures monitoredA FSR pressure sensor was placed at anterior area of maxillary edentulous analog. Three impression materials were heavy body, light body vinyl polysiloxane (3M ESPE AG, Seefeld, Germany) and alginate impression material (Dentsply, Tianjin, China) were used in this study. After one of three impression materials had been loaded onto one of four customized trays, the tray was being seated about for 20 s under hand pressure and maintained in the position till the impression material was set. The procedures were performed by the same researcher using the same seating velocity and ways. Peak pressures and end pressures were recorded at interval time of 10 s. The procedures were repeated three times.ResultsResults were analyzed using factorial AVONA and Turkey HSD test. Significant differences were found among the peak pressures produced by different impression materials and different customized trays (p<0.01). Heavy body vinyl polysiloxane and alginate produced significant higher peak pressure than light body vinyl polysiloxane (p<0.01). The customized tray with no escape hole/no relief produced the highest peak pressure than the others (p<0.01). The presence of escape hole and relief significant decreased the peak pressure (p<0.01). The customized tray with no escape hole/relief resulted in much lower peak pressure than the tray with escape hole/on relief (p<0.01). No significant different peak pressures were found between the tray with no escape hole/relief and the tray with escape hole/relief (p>0.05). No significant different end pressures were found among the different impression materials and different customized trays (p>0.05).Conclusions1:Heavy body vinyl polysiloxane and alginate impression material produced significantly higher peak pressures than light body vinyl polysiloxane.2:Customized trays with escape hole/relief and with no escape hole/relief resulted in lower peak pressures than the others.3:The heavy body vinyl polysiloxane used with no escape hole/no relief tray produced the highest peak pressures, while light body vinyl polysiloxane used with escape hole/ relief tray resulted in the lowest peak pressures.4. The end pressures were not significantly different among the different impression materials and different customized trays.更多还原