陶瓷高嵌体与全冠修复无髓后牙的临床操作及疗效对比

Comparison of Clinical Operation and Efficacy of CAD/CAM Ceramic Onlay and All-ceramic Crown in Restoration of Endodontically Treated Posterior Teeth

目的:对比分析二硅酸锂可切削玻璃陶瓷CAD/CAM高嵌体与全冠修复后牙根管治疗后邻牙合缺损的操作过程与临床疗效。方法:选择在北京市海淀医院口腔科就诊的根管治疗后邻牙合缺损的患者70例(共70颗患牙)。其中41例采用二硅酸锂可切削玻璃陶瓷CAD/CAM高嵌体修复,29例采用二硅酸锂可切削玻璃陶瓷CAD/CAM全冠修复,记录术中使用桩核情况、牙体预备时间等,术后3年进行回访,观察其修复体边缘密合度、外形、边缘着色、颜色匹配、继发龋、表面质地及食物嵌塞等情况,并填写满意度调查表。结果:高嵌体修复组使用桩核率及牙体预备时间低于全冠修复组,两种修复方法组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);3年后疗效评价,两种修复方式组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:使用二硅酸锂可切削玻璃陶瓷CAD/CAM高嵌体修复根管治疗后邻牙合缺损的后牙,修复过程可减少桩核使用,缩短备牙时间,减少就诊次数;3年期的临床效果等同于二硅酸锂可切削玻璃陶瓷全冠修复,远期效果有待观察。

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of Lithium disilicate ceramics CAD/CAM onlay and Lithium disilicate ceramics CAD/CAM cown in restoration of endodontically treated posteriorteeth. Methods Endodontically treated posterior teeth were recruited in our clinical trial. 41 teeth of theselected teeth were restored with Lithium disilicate ceramics CAD/CAM onlay, and the rest was restored by crown. After 3 year, the teeth with restoration of the two groups were assessed according to the modified USPHS criteria including Edge density,Crown shape,Edge coloring,Color matching,Secondary caries,Surface texture.The condition of food impaction were asked and checked.At the same time,the patient's satisfaction was evaluated. Results There was no significant difference was observed between Lithium disilicate ceramics CAD/CAM onlay and Lithium disilicate ceramics CAD/CAM cown (P >0.05). Conclusion The efficacy of Lithium disilicate ceramics CAD/CAM onlay is equivalent crownin restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth.