论文部分内容阅读
目的对比无水乙醇湿粘接技术与传统湿粘接技术对于无髓恒牙的树脂充填效果。方法共98例在北京大学口腔医院门诊部儿童口腔科就诊的12~16岁患者纳入本研究。纳入无髓恒牙107颗,其中前牙61例,前磨牙3例,磨牙43例。患者/患牙随机分为两组,其中实验组(无水乙醇湿粘接)54例(切牙及侧切牙29例,前磨牙2例,磨牙23例),对照组(传统湿粘接)53例(切牙及侧切牙32例,前磨牙1例,磨牙20例),由同一医生完成所有临床操作。12个月后复查,并根据Ryge提出的USPHS评价系统制定出本研究的临床评价标准,请另两名医生在双盲的条件下进行直接临床评价。本研究使用运用SPSS软件对所得数据进行统计学分析,临床USPHS评分使用卡方检验进行比较。结果12个月后复查,临床检查结果显示,实验组牙齿USPHS评分均为0,对照组中2例磨牙记录为1。卡方检验实验组与对照组间,12个月后临床检查结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论本研究显示无水乙醇湿粘接技术进行树脂粘接修复12个月后临床检查结果与传统湿粘接技术无明显差异。
Objective To compare the resin filling effect of anhydrous ethanol wet bonding technology and traditional wet bonding technology on non-permanent pulp. Methods A total of 98 patients aged 12 to 16 years who were admitted to Department of Stomatology, Peking University Stomatological Hospital for pediatric dentistry were enrolled in this study. Inclusion of 107 non-permanent teeth, of which 61 cases of anterior teeth, premolar three cases, 43 cases of molar. The patients / diseased teeth were randomly divided into two groups, including 54 experimental groups (29 cases of incisors and lateral incisors, 2 cases of premolar teeth, 23 cases of molar teeth) and the control group (traditional wet bonding) 53 cases (incisor and lateral incisors in 32 cases, premolar in 1 case, molars in 20 cases), by the same doctor to complete all clinical operations. After 12 months of review, the clinical evaluation criteria of this study were developed according to the USPHS evaluation system proposed by Ryge. Two other doctors were required to conduct direct clinical evaluation under double-blind conditions. The present study used SPSS software to statistically analyze the data obtained and clinical USPHS scores were compared using the chi-square test. The results of 12 months after the review, the results of clinical examination showed that the USPHS dental scores were 0 in the experimental group, 2 cases of control group, the molar recorded as 1. Chi-square test between the experimental group and the control group, 12 months after the clinical examination showed no significant difference (P> 0.05). Conclusions This study shows that there is no significant difference between the results of clinical examination and the traditional wet bonding technique after 12 months of wet bonding with anhydrous ethanol.