前磨牙不同类型缺损应用嵌体修复与桩核冠修复的临床效果观察

Clinical effect of different types of premolars defects repaired with inlays and post core crows

目的探讨不同类型缺损的前磨牙应用嵌体修复与桩核冠修复的临床效果,为临床修复提供有效依据。方法选择2015年2月至2016年3月在我院口腔科就诊的前磨牙牙体缺损患者113例患者作为研究对象(共计140颗患牙)。根据前磨牙修复方法的不同将其随机分为A组与B组,A组共72颗患牙,采用嵌体修复;B组共68颗患牙,采用桩核冠修复。修复完成后每年随访,记录复查结果,通过有无松动或者脱落,与邻牙接触关系是否紧密等方面进行评价,比较两组的失败率和成功率差别。P<0.05认为差异有统计学意义。结果 A组嵌体修复对Ⅰ类、Ⅱ类患牙有较好的的治疗效果,修复成功率高于B组桩核冠修复,B组桩核冠修复对Ⅲ类、Ⅳ类患牙的治疗效果明显,但两种修复方法效果差异比较无统计学意义(P>0.05),随访2年发现,A组嵌体修复72颗患牙,修复成功68颗,成功率为94.44%,失败例数中,1例牙根折断,1例冠部牙体折断,2例嵌体脱落;B组桩核冠修复68颗患牙,修复成功62颗,成功率为91.18%,失败例数中3例牙根折断,2例冠部牙体折断,1例冠脱落。两组的修复方法效果无统计学差异(P>0.05),且对于修复后失败情况两种修复方法在统计学上没有显著差异(P>0.05)。结论若前磨牙是Ⅰ、Ⅱ类缺损可使用嵌体修复,Ⅲ、Ⅳ类缺损可选择桩核冠修复。两种修复方式对前磨牙牙体缺损修复效果无统计学差异,均可有效地保存残冠,恢复患者患牙的功能。

Objective To investigate the clinical effect of inlay restoration and post crown restoration in different types of premolar tooth defect. Methods A total of 113 patients with premolars tooth defect in the dental department of our hospital from February 2015 to March 2016 were selected as subjects (a total of 140 teeth). According to the different methods of premolar restoration, they were divided into group A and group B. A group of 72 teeth were repaired with inlays. Group B had 68 teeth and was repaired with post-core crown. After the completion of the repair, the results of the annual review were recorded. The failure rate and success rate of the two groups were compared through evaluation on whether there was any loosening or shedding, and whether the contact with adjacent teeth was close. Results A group of inlay restoration has better therapeutic effect on type I and II teeth, the success rate of repair is higher than that of group B, and the treatment effect in group B of post crown crown restoration on type III and IV teeth, is obvious, but the difference between the two repair methods was not statistically significant (P>0.05). After 2 years of follow-up, it was found that 72 diseased teeth were repaired with inlays in group A, and 68 of them were successfully repaired, with a success rate of 94.44%. Among the failure cases, 1 root fracture, 1 crown tooth fracture, and 2 inlays shedding were found. In group B, 68 diseased teeth were repaired with post-core crown, and 62 were successfully repaired with a success rate of 91.18%. Among the failure cases, 3 had root fracture, 2 had crown fracture, and 1 had crown shedding.There was no significant difference in the effect of the repair methods between the two groups (P>0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two repair methods in terms of the failure after repair (P>0.05). Conclusion If premolars are type I or II defect, inlay restoration can be used, and the type III and IV defects can be repaired by post core crown prosthesis. There are no statistical differences between the two repair methods in the restoration of the premolars, and they can effectively preserve the residual crown and restore the patient's dental function.