不同材料充填乳磨牙龋齿的临床疗效分析

ANALYSIS OF THE CLINICAL EFFICACLY OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS FOR FILLING DECIDUOUS MOLARS

目的观察不同材料对乳磨牙龋齿充填后的临床效果。方法选取112名患儿,共患有邻面龋或邻颌面龋的乳磨牙198颗,将其随机分为A、B、C三组,每组66颗龋齿。A组使用自酸蚀自粘结constic树脂充填,B组用Beautifil Flow Plus F00流体树脂充填,C组用Ketac Molar Easymix易混型玻璃离子充填。比较三组患牙的治疗成功率、平均充填操作时间及充填并发症发生率。结果成功率:A、B、C三组分别为92.18%、93.84%、81.25%,三组比较有统计学意义(χ~2=6.21,P=0.045),其中A、B两组成功率均高于C组(P<0.05);充填操作时间:A、B、C三组分别为(5.68±1.23)min、(8.32±3.23)min、(3.25±1.32)min,三者比较有统计学意义(F=93.01,P<0.01),以C组最少,B组用时最长;并发症发生率:A、B、C三组分别为9.09%、9.09%、22.73%,三者比较差异有统计学意义(χ~2=11.11,P=0.013),其中A、B两组并发症发生率均低于C组(P<0.05)。结论 constic树脂和Beautifil Flow Plus F00流体树脂充填乳磨牙龋坏的临床治疗效果明显优于Ketac Molar Easymix易混型超硬充填用玻璃离子。constic树脂可操作性具有明显优势。

Objective To observe the clinical effects of different materials with which were filled deciduous molars.Methods 198 deciduous molars of adjacent or adjacent maxillofacial fistula from 112 children were randomly divided into three groups：A,B and C,and each group had 66 molars.Molars in group A were filled with self-adhesive self-bonding constic resin,and molars in group B were filled with Beautifil Flow Plus F00 fluid resin,and molars in group C were filled with KetacTM Molar Easymix easily mixed glass ions.The treatment success rate,the average filling operation time and the incidence rate of filling complication of three groups were compared.Results The treatment success rate of group A,B and C were92.18%,93.84% and 81.25%,respectively,and these data were statistically significant（χ^2=6.21,P =0.045）.And the success rate of group A and B were higher than group C（P〈0.05）.The average filling operation time of group A,B,and C were（5.68±1.23）min,（8.32±3.23）min and（3.25±1.32）min,respectively,and these data were statistically significant（F =93.01,P〈0.01）.And the average filling operation time of group C was the least,and group B was the longest.The incidence rate of filling complication of group A,B and C were 9.09%,9.09% and 22.73%,respectively,and these data were statistically significant（χ^2=11.11,P =0.013）.The incidence rate of filling complication of group A and B were lower than group C（P〈0.05）.Conclusion The clinical efficacy of constic resin and Beautifil Flow Plus F00 fluid resin with which were filled molars were significantly better than KetacTM Molar Easymix ultra-hard filling glass ion.The operability advantages of constic resin were obvious.