前牙In-Ceram全瓷冠与金属烤瓷冠修复临床疗效对比

The Clinical Comparison between In-Ceram all-ceramic Crowns and PFM Crowns of Anterior Teeth

目的:评价In-Ceram全瓷冠在前牙修复的临床效果。方法:对30例58颗前牙进行全瓷冠修复(全瓷冠组),以加利福尼亚牙科协会(CDA)评价标准对戴用0.5～2年后的冠边缘完整性、解剖外形、表面及颜色等进行临床观察评价,结合美观效果、牙龈刺激及失败率等指标,与同期制作的金属烤瓷修复体(金属烤瓷冠组)进行对比。结果:全瓷冠在颜色(满意率:全瓷冠91.4%,烤瓷冠75.8%)及解剖外形(满意率:全瓷冠91.4%,烤瓷冠77.3%)满意度方面优于烤瓷冠组(均P<0.05)。全瓷冠出现牙龈炎的概率小于烤瓷冠,2组在1.5年以后差别有统计学意义(P<0.05)。全瓷冠组不会出现龈缘灰线,金属烤瓷冠组在1年后就会有龈缘灰线出现,2组差别有统计学意义(P<0.05),在修复失败率及边缘完整性方面,2组差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:In-Ceram全瓷冠用于前牙修复可取得良好效果。

Objective： To evaluate the clinical results of In-Ceram all-ceramic crowns in anterior teeth restoration. Methods： Fifty-eight anterior teeth of 30 cases were restored by all-ceramic crowns. The clinical evaluation on the integrity of crown margin, anatomical shape, surface and color using the evaluation criteria of California Dental Association was performed six months to two years after wearing. Combining indexes such as aesthetic effect, stimulus of gingival, and failure rate were compared between all-ceramic crowns and PFM crowns in the same period. Results： All-ceramic crown was better than PFM in color and aesthetic （all-ceramic 91.4% and 91.4% patients,PFM 75.8% and 77.3% patients were satisfied with color and aesthetic ） （P 〈 0.05 ）. All-ceramic appeared stimulus of gingival was lower than PFM. There was a significant difference in the two groups after 1.5 years （P 〈 0.05 ）. All-ceramic didn＇t appear gray-line on the edge of gingival, and PFM appeared it one year later. There was a significant difference in the two groups （P 〈 0.05 ）. The defeat rate of the restorations and integrity of crown margin had no difference （P 〉 0.05）. Conclusion： In-Ceram all-ceramic crowns has a good effect on anterior teeth restoration.