Methods: 80 patients with anterior teeth defect (80 teeth) were selected from June 2018 to June 2020. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, 40 patients in each group (40 teeth). The control group was tre...Methods: 80 patients with anterior teeth defect (80 teeth) were selected from June 2018 to June 2020. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, 40 patients in each group (40 teeth). The control group was treated with conventional composite resin, while the observation group was treated with aesthetic composite resin layered plasticization. The success rate, satisfaction score, periodontal health status, pink aesthetic index (PES) score and complications occurred. Results: the success rate of repair in the observation group was higher than that in the control group (95%vs75%) (χ26.275, P 0.012 < 0.05). the satisfaction scores at the completion of repair and 3 months after repair were higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Three months after restoration, the number of periodontal health related indicators in the observation group was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in PES scores between the two groups before treatment (P > 0.05). The PES scores of the two groups were significantly higher at 12 and 24 months after treatment than before treatment (P < 0.05). The PES scores of the observation group were higher than those of the control group at 12 and 24 months after treatment (P < 0.05). After 2 years of follow-up, the observation group had complications such as prosthesis cutting, prosthesis discoloration, exogenous coloring, tooth sensitivity, while the control group had complications such as filling loss, pulpitis, dental caries, prosthesis discoloration, exogenous coloring, etc. The incidence of complications in the observation group (20%vs25%) was lower than that in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion: the aesthetic composite resin layered plasticizing technique has the advantages of high success rate, high satisfaction and good periodontal health. It is superior to the conventional composite resin restoration technique and is worthy of clinical promotion.展开更多
文摘Methods: 80 patients with anterior teeth defect (80 teeth) were selected from June 2018 to June 2020. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, 40 patients in each group (40 teeth). The control group was treated with conventional composite resin, while the observation group was treated with aesthetic composite resin layered plasticization. The success rate, satisfaction score, periodontal health status, pink aesthetic index (PES) score and complications occurred. Results: the success rate of repair in the observation group was higher than that in the control group (95%vs75%) (χ26.275, P 0.012 < 0.05). the satisfaction scores at the completion of repair and 3 months after repair were higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Three months after restoration, the number of periodontal health related indicators in the observation group was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in PES scores between the two groups before treatment (P > 0.05). The PES scores of the two groups were significantly higher at 12 and 24 months after treatment than before treatment (P < 0.05). The PES scores of the observation group were higher than those of the control group at 12 and 24 months after treatment (P < 0.05). After 2 years of follow-up, the observation group had complications such as prosthesis cutting, prosthesis discoloration, exogenous coloring, tooth sensitivity, while the control group had complications such as filling loss, pulpitis, dental caries, prosthesis discoloration, exogenous coloring, etc. The incidence of complications in the observation group (20%vs25%) was lower than that in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion: the aesthetic composite resin layered plasticizing technique has the advantages of high success rate, high satisfaction and good periodontal health. It is superior to the conventional composite resin restoration technique and is worthy of clinical promotion.
