三种方法修复楔形缺损疗效对比

目的 :比较玻璃离子水门汀、光固化复合树脂、光固化玻璃离子水门汀夹层技术修复楔形缺损的疗效。方法 :5 0例 2 6 7个楔形缺损牙随机分成A、B、C 3组 ,用不同材料修复 ,A组用玻璃离子水门汀 ,B组用光固化复合树脂 ,C组用光固化玻璃离子水门汀夹层技术修复楔形缺损 ,随访 2年后的疗效。结果 :A组的 89个牙中有 10个牙失败 ,成功率为 88.9% ;B组的 89个牙中有 17个牙失败 ,成功率为 80 .9% ;C组的 89个牙中有 3个牙失败 ,成功率为95 .4 %。结论 :用玻璃离子水门汀修复楔形缺损的成功率稍高于光固化复合树脂修复楔形缺损的成功率 ,但光固化复合树脂比玻璃离子水门汀美观、耐磨 ,而光固化玻璃离子水门汀夹层技术成功率高于另二者 ,同时具有二者的优点。提示临床中应根据患者年龄、性别、牙位、缺损度以及患者的要求选择恰当的修复方法。

Comparison among three methods in the restoration of teeth with wedge-shaped defects

AIM:To compare the clinical curative effects among three different methods in restoration of wedge-shaped defects of teeth .The three methods are restoration of teeth by using glass ionomer,light curing composite,and interlayer technology.METHODS:Fifty cases of 267 teeth with various degree of dental wedge-shaped defects were randomly divided into three groups A,B,C.Group A were restored by glass ionomer,the group B by light curing composite,and group C by the interlayer technology.Evaluation of the clinical curative effect was made after restoration for two years.RESULTS:There are ten teeth failed in the eighty-nine of group A,seventeen ones in group B,and three ones in group C.The successful rate of group A is 88.9%,group B 80.9% and group C 95.4%.CONCLUSION:The clinical curative effect of glass ionomer is better than the light curing composite,but the light curing composite is more anti-abradant and graceful than glass ionomer.The clinical curative effect of the interlayer techology is better than the other two,and it has the advantages of the others.