检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:王明辉[1]
机构地区:[1]福建省三明市第二医院口腔科福建中医药大学第五临床医学院,福建三明366000
出 处:《中国现代医生》2016年第16期60-62,共3页China Modern Doctor
摘 要:目的对比研究可塑纤维桩和预成纤维桩在口腔修复中的临床应用效果。方法随机抽取2015年1-9月收治的150例(204颗患牙)需行口腔修复的患者作为研究对象,将其按照修复方法的不同分为两组.每组75例,1组患者采用可塑纤维桩进行修复治疗,2组患者则采用预成纤维桩进行修复治疗,分别对两组患者的修复效果、修复满意度进行比较。结果1组和2组患者治疗后的修复成功率分别为73.5%和100.0%,每颗纤维桩修复所需的时间分别为(103.8±10.4)min和(65.2±6.7)min,患者的满意度分别为69.3%和97.3%,2组显著优于1组患者,差异有统计学意义(P〈0.05)。结论在实施口腔修复的过程中,在条件允许的情况下,选择预成纤维桩可以获得更为理想的修复效果。Objective To compare the application effects of plastic fiber post and prefabricated fiber post in dental restoration. Methods 150 patients with 204 involved teeth treated by dental restoration from January to September 2015 were randomly selected and divided based on the methods of restoration into two groups, each with 75 cases. Pa- tients in group 1 were given restoration using plastic fiber posts, while in group 2, prefabricated fiber posts were ap- plied. The restoration effects, and satisfaction degrees of patients were compared. Results The success rates of restora- tion were 73.5% and 100.0% in group 1 and group 2, respectively. The time required for restoration on each tooth was (103.8±10.4) min and (65.2±6.7) min, respectively. The satisfaction degree of patients in group 2 was 97.3%, which was significantly higher than the 69.3% in group 1 (P〈0.05). Conclusion Prefabricated fiber post is a preferable choice in dental restoration if conditions permit.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.88