摘要
目的:比较3M光固化复合树脂,卡瑞斯玛光固化复合树脂和GCFujiII玻璃离子体三种材料在牙颈部缺损修复中的美学效果和临床疗效。方法:选择条件相近的牙颈部缺损患牙分别以3M光固化复合树脂,卡瑞斯玛光固化复合树脂和GCFu-jiII玻璃离子体修复,共162例(463颗患牙)。统计术后即时及1年后的美学效果,并比较术后1年3组的临床疗效。结果:从美学效果看,光固化复合树脂明显优于玻璃离子体;3M光固化复合树脂较卡瑞斯玛光固化复合树脂的美学效果在术后即时无明显差异(P>0.05),而术后一年则明显高于后者(P<0.05)。采用湿粘结和夹层技术修复患牙的3M光固化复合树脂在临床疗效上明显高于采用干粘结和夹层技术的卡瑞斯玛光固化复合树脂,而后者在临床疗效上明显优于仅用玻璃离子体修复者。结论:3M光固化复合树脂具有较好的美观性和较高的临床疗效,是用于牙颈部缺损美容修复的良好材料。
Objective To compare the aesthetics results and clinical results of three materials,3M light-cured compounded resin, CHARISMA light-cured compouned resin, GC Fuji Ⅱ glass ionomer restorative cement, which are used for aesthetics restoration of tooth cervix defect. Methods Separately apply three materials：3M light-cured compounded resin,CHARISMA light cured compounded resin and GC Fuji Ⅱ glass ionomer restrative cement to restorate three similar patients groups, who have problem of tooth cervix defect, total 162 cases, with 463 cervix defect teeth. Collect satisfaction from aesthetics results immediate after treatment and compare clinical results of those three groups one year after treatment. Results Light-cured compounded resin is obviously better than glass ionomer cement if we compare the aesthetics results.Between the two different resin, 3M seems not different from CHARISMA if we compare the immediate aesthetics results after operation（P〉0.05）, but it obviously better than the later if we compare again after one year（P〈0.05）, and with wet-bonding and sandwich technique, 3M is also obviously better than CHARISMA, which with dry-bonding and sandwich technique, but later is still obviously better than glass ionomer cement if we compare both from clinical results. Conclusion 3M has good aesthetics results and effective clinical results, which is suitable materials for restoration of tooth cervix defect.
出处
《中国美容医学》
CAS
2006年第4期435-437,共3页
Chinese Journal of Aesthetic Medicine
