不同口腔修复材料在糖尿病患者口腔修复中抗摩擦效果对比

Different Dental Anti-friction Effect of Contrast Material in the Oral Dia-betes Repair

目的探讨不同口腔修复材料在糖尿病患者口腔修复中抗摩擦效果对比。方法选取该院2014年4月—2015年4月收治的伴有糖尿病的口腔修复患者126例(共183颗牙齿),随机分为治疗组、实验组和对照组三组,每组42例。治疗组患者给予树脂材料修复,实验组患者给予金属材料修复,对照组患者给予陶瓷材料修复,对比分析三组患者不同阶段的牙齿修复成功率,分析修复失败的原因。结果 6个月之内治疗组患者的牙齿修复成功率为95.08%,实验组患者的牙齿修复成功率为95.08%,对照组患者的牙齿修复成功率为91.8%;1年内治疗组患者的牙齿修复成功率为93.44%,实验组患者的牙齿修复成功率为90.2%,对照组患者的牙齿修复成功率为90.2%,三组患者的修复成功率比较无显著差异,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。修复失败的原因主要包括破裂、松动、畸形等。结论树脂材料、金属材料和陶瓷材料在糖尿病患者口腔修复中的抗摩擦效果基本相同,无显著差别,临床上可以根据实际需要合理选择合适的材料。

Objective To study the effect of anti-friction material prosthodontics in oral diabetes contrast repair. Methods Our hospital in April 2014~April 2015 admitted to dental patients with diabetes 126 cases （a total of 183 teeth） were ran-domly divided into two groups, the experimental group and the control group three groups, 42 cases each. The treatment group were treated with resin material repair, the experimental group were treated with a metal material to repair the control group were treated with ceramic materials repair, comparative analysis of three groups of patients with different stages of dental restoration success rate, analyze the reasons for the failure of the repair. Results Within six months in patients treat-ed with a success rate of 95.08% dental restoration, dental restoration experimental group were 95.08% success rate in the control group of patients with dental restorations success rate was 91.8%;1 year in patients treated tooth restoration success was 93.44%, experimental group dental restoration success rate of 90.2%in the control group of patients with a success rate of 90.2% dental restoration, there was no significant difference in the success rate of repair of the three groups of patients, the difference was not statistically significant （P〉0.05）. The main causes of the failure to repair broken, loose, malforma-tions. Conclusion Resin materials, metal materials and ceramic materials in the oral anti-friction effect repair in patients with diabetes are basically the same, no significant difference can actually need a reasonable choice of suitable materials according to clinical practice.