传统和微创全瓷修复中在前牙缺陷美学修复中的效果对比分析

The clinical effect of the traditional restoration and minimally invasive all-ceramic Aesthetics on anterior tooth defect

目的:比较传统和微创两种全瓷修复中在美学缺陷前牙修复中的成功率和美学效果。方法:选择64例前牙美学缺陷的80例患牙,分别行传统全瓷修复(传统组)和微创全瓷修复(微创组),各32例(40颗)。采用视觉模拟评(VAS)评分评价各组的美学修复满意度,采用美国公共健康协会修正标准(USPHS)评价各组的优秀率,比较两组修复6、12、24个月的成功率。结果:微创修复组修复后各前牙缺陷美学VAS满意度总评分均达到(9.39±0.37)分,显著高于传统组评分(P<0.05);形态、边缘着色、密合度和继发龋4个参数USPHS评级A级比例分别达到100.00%、97.50%、97.50%和100.00%,显著高于对照组(P<0.05);修复24个月后牙间隙、切端缺损、畸形过小牙、牙体表面缺损、牙着色或变色缺陷修复成功率分别达到88.89%、85.71%、87.5%、77.77%和85.71%,其中牙间隙、切端缺损和畸形过小牙成功率显著高于传统修复组(P<0.05)。结论:微创全瓷修复前牙缺陷,美容效果好,修复成功率高,患者满意度高,综合效果优于传统全瓷修复。

Objective To investigate the clinical effect of the traditional restoration and minimally invasive all-ceramic Aesthetics on anterior tooth defect. Methods 80 cases of anterior teeth defect were treated by traditional aesthetics and minimally invasive all-ceramic restoration,each group had 32 cases of 40 teeth.The visual analog score （VAS） was used to evaluate the aesthetic repair satisfaction scores of each group.The American Public Health Association revised standard（USPHS） was used to evaluate the excellent rate of each group.The success rate after 6 months,12 months and 24 months between the two groups were compared. Results The VAS total score after repair reached （9.39±0.37）% significantly higher than that of the traditional group score （P〈0.05）;The USPHS A-class ratio of morphology, edge coloring,adaptation and secondary caries were reached 100%, 97.50%, 97.50% and 100% respectively,were all significantly higher than the control group （P〈0.05）.The repair success rate after 24 months of posterior gap, incisal defect, deformity small teeth,tooth surface defect,tooth staining or discoloration reached 88.89%, 85.71% ,87.5% ,77.77% and 85.71% respectively,where in the tooth gap, incisal defect and deformed microdontia success rate was significantly higher than that in traditional repair group （P〈0.05）. Conclusion The restoration of anterior teeth defect of minimally invasive had good cosmetic effect, high repair success rate and high patient satisfaction, the comprehensive effect was better than that of the traditional all-ceramic restoration.