摘要
目的评价不锈钢根管桩与玻璃纤维桩用于残冠修复的临床效果。方法选择2009年6—8月柳州市人民医院口腔科门诊收治的残冠患者132例(160颗患牙),随机分成两组,每组80颗,分别采用Anthogyr不锈钢根管桩和玻璃纤维桩修复患牙,且均采用光固化瓷化树脂修补残冠并全冠修复,对其操作时间、同期成功率进行比较。结果经2年随访,两组成功率比较,差异无统计学意义(100%对93.8%;χ2=0.069,P>0.05)。结论 Anthogyr不锈钢根管桩与玻璃纤维桩的临床修复效果相近,前者设计独特、固位好、操作快捷、成本更低廉,值得推广应用。
Objective To compare the practical results of two post cores： the Anthogyr root-canal stainless steel post and the glass-fiber post, through methods of instant restoration of the residual crown and the restoration of the residual crown for permanent ceramic crown. Methods Totally 132 patients who have residual crown with 160 teeth were selected from the Department of Stomatology of Liuzhou People＇ s Hospital from June to August 2009, and were randomly divided into two groups; in each group there were 80 teeth. And two methods were used to restore the residual crown respectively： the Anthogyr root-canal stainless steel post and the glass-fiber post. Both groups used light-cure tetric ceram to repair the residual crown and then restored the residual crown for permanent ceramic crown. The operation time and convenience, cost-performance, the corresponding period success rate and curative effect of the two groups were compared and studied. Results Through 2 years＇ follow-up, （ 100% vs 93.8% ; X2 = 0.069,P 〈 0.05）, there was no significant statistical difference between the two kinds of posts in corresponding period success rate. Conclusion The Anthogyr root-canal stainless steel post and the glass-fiber post have similar curative effects. But due to the former＇ s unique design, hard retainer, easy operation and low price, it is worth spreading and applying.
出处
《中国实用口腔科杂志》
CAS
2011年第10期612-613,共2页
Chinese Journal of Practical Stomatology
