论文部分内容阅读
目的比较3M Adeper~(TM) Easy One和Clearfil SE Bond两种自酸蚀粘接剂修复牙颈部楔状缺损的疗效。方法选择2009年1月至2011年3月在安徽省阜阳市人民医院体检中心口腔科就诊的40例牙颈部楔状缺损患者,共有50对(100颗)左右对称同名患牙。将所有患牙按照随机同名牙配对方法分为两组,各50颗。一组患牙采用3M Adeper~(TM) Easy One粘接剂修复,另一组患牙采用Clearfil SE Bond粘接剂修复。分别于修复后1年和2年对两组患牙进行随访,根据改良USPHS/Ryge临床评价标准评价修复效果。结果 3M Adeper~(TM) Easy One粘接剂修复楔状缺损1年和2年的固位率分别为96%和90%;Clearfil SE Bond粘接剂修复楔状缺损1年和2年的固位率分别为94%和86%。经统计学检验,两种粘接剂在修复效果上差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 3M Adeper~(TM) Easy One和Clearfil SE Bond两种自酸蚀粘接剂修复牙颈部楔状缺损的临床效果相当,临床工作中可根据实际情况灵活选择使用。
Objective To compare the efficacy of two self-etching adhesives, 3M Adeper ™ Easy One and Clearfil SE Bond, in the repair of wedge-shaped defects of the cervical spine. Methods From January 2009 to March 2011, 40 cases of dental wedge-shaped defect patients in the Department of Stomatology, Fuyang People’s Hospital Physical Examination Center of Anhui Province were selected and there were 50 pairs (100 teeth) of the same name with the same name. All the affected teeth were randomly divided into two groups with 50 teeth each. One set of teeth was repaired with 3M Adeper ™ Easy One adhesive and the other set of teeth repaired with Clearfil SE Bond adhesive. The two groups of teeth were followed up 1 year and 2 years respectively after repair, and the repair effect was evaluated according to the modified USPHS / Ryge clinical evaluation standard. Results One-year and two-year follow-up rates of 3M Adeper ™ Easy One adhesive for wedge-shaped defects were 96% and 90%, respectively; Clearfil SE Bond adhesive restored the 1-year and 2-year retention rates for wedge-shaped defects Respectively 94% and 86%. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the two adhesives in the repair effect (P> 0.05). Conclusion The clinical effects of 3M Adeper TM Easy One and Clearfil SE Bond self-etching adhesives in repairing the wedge-shaped defects of the dental neck are quite comparable. The clinical work can be flexibly selected according to the actual situation.