不同脱敏剂对牙列缺损行固定桥修复牙体预备后牙本质过敏影响的对比  

Effect comparison of different desensitizers on dentin allergy in patients undergoing fixed bridge restoration tooth preparation for dentition defect

作　　者：李宏文[1,2,3] 黄翠[4] 

机构地区：[1]武汉大学口腔医学院,湖北武汉430079 [2]三峡大学第二人民医院 [3]宜昌市第二人民医院口腔科,湖北宜昌443000 [4]武汉大学口腔医院修复科,湖北武汉430079

出　　处：《临床和实验医学杂志》2015年第7期530-532,共3页Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine

基　　金：国家自然科学基金资助项目(编号:30900682)

摘　　要：目的探讨不同脱敏剂对牙列缺损行固定桥修复牙体预备后牙本质过敏的影响。方法选取因牙列缺损就诊且行固定桥修复的患者90例,根据在固定修复牙体预备后采用的不同脱敏剂将患者分为保护膜和Gluma脱敏剂组,每组45例患者。比较两组患者治疗后疼痛感、临床疗效和患者满意度。结果治疗后两组的疼痛感均显著降低,而保护膜组患者疼痛感明显的低于Gluma脱敏剂组患者;保护膜组疗效显著的患者数以及总有效率均明显的高于Gluma脱敏剂组患者,且差异具有统计学意义;两组患者的满意度的分布以及总满意度的差异均无统计学差异。结论牙本质保护膜措施应用于牙列缺损行固定桥修复牙体预备后患者改善疼痛和敏感的疗效明显的优于Gluma脱敏剂涂抹措施,值得临床推广。Objective To compare the effect of different desensitizers on dentin allergy in patients undergoing fixed bridge restoration tooth preparation for dentition defect. Methods Ninety patients with dentition defect for fixed bridge restoration,were divided into protective film group and Gluma desensitizer group according to the different desensitization agents used in fixed restoration of tooth preparation,45 patients in each group. Pain,clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction were compared between two groups after treatment. Results After the treatment,pain relief was observed in both groups,but it was more significantly in the protective film group. The total effective rate of the treatment was higher in protective film group than Gluma desensitizer group,and the difference was statistically significant. No difference was found in patient satisfaction rate between two groups. Conclusion The dentin protective film shows better effect on pain relief and hypersensitivity than Gluma desensitizer for fixed bridge restoration tooth preparation in patients with dentition defect.

关 键 词：固定桥修复 牙本质保护膜 GLUMA脱敏剂 牙本质 过敏 

分 类 号：R781.2[医药卫生—口腔医学]