摘要
目的:评价排龈硅橡胶(MFC)与排龈线2种方法排龈效果的差异。方法:选择116颗需全冠修复前牙,牙体预备后记录预备体边缘位置,分别为龈下≤2 mm或>2 mm。随机将患者分为排龈线组和排龈硅橡胶组(MFC组),其中:排龈线组57颗,龈下≤2 mm者34颗,>2 mm者23颗;MFC组59颗,龈下≤2 mm者31颗,>2 mm者28颗。排龈后对预备体排龈效果和印模质量进行评价。结果:对预备体和印模质量进行观察,当边缘线位于龈下≤2 mm时,排龈线组和MFC组比较均无显著性差异;龈下>2 mm时,观察预备体排龈效果无显著性差异,印模质量2组有显著性差异。结论:与排龈线比较,MFC用于龈上边缘或边缘在龈下2 mm以上时,操作更为简便且无创;当深度>2 mm时,排龈线的排龈效果优于MFC。
Objective:To evaluate the retraction result of Magic Foam Cord and retraction cord.Methods:116 front teeth needing the fixed prosthodontic were selected.The routine preparation of teeth was made.The preparation finish line were recorded according to subgingival≤2 mm or2 mm.They were divided into two groups randomly.57 teeth were treated with the retraction cord group which consisted of 34 teeth subgingival≤2 mm and 23 teeth2 mm.59 teeth were treated with Magic Foam Cord group which consisted of 31 teeth subgingival ≤2 mm and 28 teeth2 mm.The quality of the teeth preparation bodies and the impressions were evaluated.Data were analysed with Chi-Square.Results:No significant difference was found between Magic Foam Cord and retraction cord when the preparation finish line was subgingival≤2 mm.When more than 2 mm subgingivally,the quality of the teeth preparation bodies had no significant difference.While the quality of impression was significant difference between the two control groups.Conclusion:In case of the preparation finish line is at subgingival≤2 mm,Magic Foam Cord is a easy nontraumatic method of gingival retraction.However,when there is deep subgingival margin,retraction cord is better.
出处
《现代临床医学》
2013年第2期121-122,共2页
Journal of Modern Clinical Medicine
关键词
排龈术
预备体边缘线
印模
gingival retraction
preparation finish line
impression