论文部分内容阅读
目的比较3种粘接剂治疗牙本质过敏症的临床疗效。方法选择2010年5月至2011年9月到首都医科大学附属北京口腔医院口腔内科就诊的牙根颈部暴露和后牙面磨耗致牙本质过敏症患者80例,共256颗患牙,分别使用G-BOND(GC组,85颗)、AdperTM Single Bond 2(3M组,85颗)、iBOND Self Etch(iBOND组,86颗)粘接剂进行脱敏治疗,对比观察3组的临床脱敏效果。结果脱敏治疗后即刻有效率:GC组为27.1%,3M组为63.5%,iBOND组为93.0%;iBOND组即刻有效率明显高于GC组和3M组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。脱敏治疗后3、6个月,GC组有效率为14.1%和12.9%,3M组为58.8%和56.5%,iBOND组为70.9%和61.6%。3组在治疗后3、6个月的有效率均低于其即刻有效率,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。iBOND组和3M组在治疗后6个月的有效率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 iBOND Self Etch自酸蚀光固化粘接剂治疗牙本质过敏症操作简便,近期效果满意,远期效果有待观察。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of three adhesives in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity. Methods From May 2010 to September 2011, 80 patients with dentine hypersensitivity who suffered from tooth root neck exposure and posterior tooth facet abrasion were interviewed at Department of Stomatology, Beijing Stomatological Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University from May 2010 to September 2011. A total of 256 teeth were used, respectively G-BOND (GC group, 85), AdperTM Single Bond 2 (3M group, 85), iBOND Self Etch (iBOND group, 86) adhesive desensitization treatment, . Results Immediately after desensitization, the effective rate was 27.1% in GC group, 63.5% in 3M group and 93.0% in iBOND group. The immediate effective rate in iBOND group was significantly higher than that in GC group and 3M group (P <0.05) ). At 3 and 6 months after desensitization, the effective rates in GC group were 14.1% and 12.9%, those in 3M group were 58.8% and 56.5%, those in iBOND group were 70.9% and 61.6% respectively. The effective rates of 3 and 6 months after treatment in 3 groups were lower than those in immediate success rate, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in the effective rate between iBOND group and 3M group at 6 months after treatment (P> 0.05). Conclusion iBOND Self Etch self-etching light curing adhesive treatment of dentine hypersensitivity is simple and convenient, the recent results are satisfactory, the long-term effect remains to be seen.