论文部分内容阅读
目的对比分析口腔修复中树脂材料、金属材料、陶瓷材料的抗摩擦性能。方法选取2010年3月—2013年2月在我院接受口腔修复治疗的245例患者(277颗患牙)作为研究对象,根据口腔修复材料将上述患者/患牙分为A组(81例患者,94颗患牙)、B组(77例患者,90颗患牙)、C组(87例患者,93颗患牙)。A组患牙口腔修复采用合成树脂材料,B组患牙口腔修复采用合金材料,C组患牙口腔修复采用釉质瓷材料。术后,所有患者均接受为期12个月的随访。结果 1三组患牙总修复成功率相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2所有修复体均未出现纵裂、变形/弯曲。三组修复体牙周(龈)炎、牙龈畸形发生率相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。三组修复体松动脱落、破裂发生率相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论树脂、金属、陶瓷这三种材料用于口腔修复的总成功率大致相当,但是不同材料的失败具体原因有所不同,这说明上述三种材料各有其特点,临床工作中可以根据患者的临床特点选用相应的材料。
Objective To compare and analyze the anti-friction properties of resin, metal and ceramic materials in oral repair. Methods A total of 245 patients (277 teeth) undergoing orthopedic repair in our hospital from March 2010 to February 2013 were selected as study subjects, and the patients / affected teeth were divided into group A (81 patients , 94 teeth), group B (77 patients, 90 teeth), group C (87 patients, 93 teeth). A group of dental restoration of the oral cavity using synthetic resin materials, B group dental restoration with alloy materials, C group dental restoration with enamel porcelain materials. All patients underwent a 12-month follow-up. Results There was no significant difference in the success rates of the total restoration of one group of three groups of teeth (P> 0.05). 2 All prostheses showed no longitudinal split, deformation / bending. Three groups of prosthesis periodontal (gingival) inflammation, the incidence of gingival deformity was no significant difference (P> 0.05). The three groups of prosthesis loose off, the incidence of rupture compared with the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion The total success rates of resin, metal and ceramic for oral repair are roughly the same, but the failure of different materials has different specific reasons, which shows that each of these three materials has its own characteristics. Clinical work can be based on the patient’s Select the appropriate clinical features of the material.