排龈硅橡胶与排龈线应用效果比较

A Comparison Study of the Application of Magic Foam Cord and Retraction Cord

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.