金属嵌体修复短期脱落原因对比分析  

Comparison and analysis of retention-loss ratio of different metal inlays

作　　者：于江波[1] 张春艳[1] 陈正岗[1] 张月[1] 杨芳[1] 郭大伟[1] 张广耘[1] 袁晓[1] 

机构地区：[1]青岛大学医学院附属青岛市市立医院,青岛266071

出　　处：《中国实用口腔科杂志》2015年第2期96-98,共3页Chinese Journal of Practical Stomatology

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(31170891)

摘　　要：目的比较活髓后牙两种不同金属嵌体修复短期内脱落率,并分析其原因。方法选取2011年1月至2012年6月在青岛市市立医院口腔医学中心门诊就诊的1039例患者,由同5名医生分别操作,进行活髓后牙金属嵌体修复1104颗。修复结束后6-24个月内,应用临床追踪观察方法统计分析脱落率并分析其原因。结果无论是镍铬合金还是金钯合金嵌体,Ⅱ类洞脱落率均高于Ⅰ类洞,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;两种材料脱落率在Ⅰ、Ⅱ类洞的差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。金属嵌体脱落原因主要为洞型制备不规范。结论短期内活髓后牙Ⅱ类洞金属嵌体的脱落率高于Ⅰ类洞,而金属材质的选择与脱落率可能并无关系。金属嵌体短期内脱落与洞型制备不规范密切相关。ObjectiveTo compare and analyze the retention-loss ratio of two different metal inlays in the short-term.MethodsTotally 1039 patients were chosen in the study,who had metal inlay restorations made for 1104 posterior teeth with vital pulps by five dentists. Six to 24 months later,retention-loss ratio was calculated and analyzed through clinical follow-up observation.ResultsBe it nickel chromium alloy or gold palladium alloy inlay,class Ⅱ hole retention-loss rate was higher than classⅠ,showing statistically significant difference（P0.05）;loss rate of the two kinds of material in class Ⅰ and class Ⅱ hole had no statistically significant differences（P0.05）. Causes of retention-loss of metal inlay mainly were that clinical preparation for inlay was not standard.ConclusionIn the short-term,as for mental inlays of posterior teeth with vital pulps,classⅡ hole retention-loss rate is higher than classⅠ. Metal material choice and retention-loss rate may have no relationship. The loss rate is closely related to the unstandard preparation.

关 键 词：金属嵌体 牙体缺损 后牙 

分 类 号：R78[医药卫生—口腔医学]