摘要
目的:比较不同桩核修复方式修复后牙体抗折强度和折裂形式。方法将2013年10~12月拔出的15颗下颌离体前磨牙随机分为三组,每组5颗。A组为铸造金属桩核修复,B组为纤维桩联合树脂核修复,C组为树脂充填修复。所有试件在完成桩核修复后均做金属冠修复,在力学测试机上测试试件的抗折强度,记录试件断裂时的力值和试件折裂形式。结果 A组的破坏载荷值最高,为(1.41±0.29)kN,高于B、C组[(1.20±0.28)、(1.20±0.30)kN],差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);而B、C组破坏载荷值比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。A组折裂形式主要为不可修复性折裂,其他两组主要为可修复性折裂。A组可修复性折裂发生率(0)低于B、C组[80.0%(4/5)、100.0%(5/5)],差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),而B、C组可修复性折裂发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论临床修复残根、残冠时,可以优先考虑纤维桩联合树脂核修复或者树脂充填修复。
Objective Compare the fracture resistance and jackknifing forms of teeth restored with different post-and-core systems. Methods A total of 15 extracted mandibular premolars with their crowns from October to December in 2013 were were randomly divided into three groups,5 teeth of each,Group A was restored with cast metal post and core,Group B with fiber post and resin core and Group C with resin filling. All the samples were restored with metal-crown after post-core restoring and em-beded in acrylic resin. Their fracture load and fracture mode were recorded. Results The breaking load value[(1.41±0.29)KN] of group A was higher than those of group B, group C [(1.20±0.28),(1.20±0.30)KN],which had statistical significance in differ-ence(P〈0.05). There was no statistical significance in differences between group B and group C (P〉0.05). The facture of group A was irreparable while the other groups repairable. The incidence (0) of the repairable facture was far lower than that of group B and group C[80.0%(4/5),100.0%(5/5)],whose difference has statistical significance(P〈0.05). Comparing repairable facture between group B and group C,there was no statistical significance in differences(P〉0.05). Conclusion When restoring residual crown and root in clinic,it shall prefer to fiber post and resin core.
出处
《现代医药卫生》
2014年第23期3543-3544,3547,共3页
Journal of Modern Medicine & Health
关键词
桩核技术
根管疗法
抗折强度
折裂形式
Post and core technique
Root canal therapy
Fracture resistance
Fracture pattern