论文部分内容阅读
目的比较Single bond universal粘结剂、Opti Bond FL粘结剂以及i Bond粘结剂用于恒磨牙牙体缺损修复的临床疗效。方法将87例患者的173颗患牙随机分为3组。A组(n=58):Opti bond FL全酸蚀粘结剂(全酸蚀模式);B组(n=58):Single bond universal粘结剂(自酸蚀模式);C组(n=57):i Bond自酸蚀粘结剂(选择性酸蚀模式)。3组均结合Kerr sonic fill超声树脂充填修复。修复后6个月、12个月及18个月进行回访,检查牙体缺损修复效果及牙髓状况。结果修复6个月、12个月、18个月后,3组修复成功率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。操作时间方面Single bond universal粘结剂与其余两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在本实验条件下,Single bond universal粘结剂可以达到Opti bond FL及i Bond粘结剂的粘结效果,同时Single bond universal粘结剂操作时间更短。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of Single bond universal adhesive, Opti Bond FL adhesive and i Bond adhesive for the restoration of permanent molar tooth defects. Methods A total of 173 teeth of 87 patients were randomly divided into three groups. Group A (n = 58): Opti bond FL all acid etching binder (group B) (group B) (n = 58): single bond universal binder 57): i Bond Self-etching binder (selective etching mode). The three groups were combined with Kerr sonic fill ultrasonic resin filling repair. After 6 months, 12 months and 18 months after the repair, the patients were inspected for dental restoration and dental pulp status. Results After 6 months, 12 months and 18 months of repair, there was no significant difference between the three groups in the success rate of repair (P> 0.05). Single-bond universal adhesive in operation time was significantly different from the other two groups (P <0.05). Conclusion Under the experimental conditions, Single bond universal adhesive achieves the bonding of Opti bond FL and i Bond adhesive while the Single bond universal adhesive has shorter operating time.