不同固位形式在嵌体冠修复短冠磨牙中的应用对比研究  

A Comparison of Different Retention Forms in the Restoration of Short Crown Molars with Inlay Crowns

作　　者：李军如[1] 张彩乔 于静[1] 

机构地区：[1]石家庄市第二医院口腔科,石家庄050051

出　　处：《解放军预防医学杂志》2017年第6期664-666,共3页Journal of Preventive Medicine of Chinese People's Liberation Army

摘　　要：目的研究不同固位形式在嵌体冠修复短冠磨牙中的应用。方法选取我院牙科门诊在2012年1月-2014年2月收治的90颗短冠磨牙经过根管治疗后进行嵌体冠修复,将患牙分成常规桩核嵌体冠组、髓室固位嵌体冠组与插销桩核嵌体冠组3组,每组30颗。2年后对所有患牙的修复体粘结进行临床效果比较。结果 3种嵌体冠修复方式成功率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但髓室固位嵌体冠组失败率明显高于常规桩核嵌体冠组与插销桩核嵌体冠组(P<0.05)。结论 3种不同固位形式对短冠磨牙的修复均有较好的临床效果,临床上在选择短冠磨牙修复时应根据患牙情况选择合适的修复方式。Objective To investigate the applications of different retention forms in the restoration of short crown molars. Methods Ninety patients with short crown molars were treated with root canal inlay crowns in our hospital between January 2012 and February 2014. The diseased teeth were equally divided into three groups ： the conventional crown inlay crown group, pulp chamber inlay inlay crown group and insert pin crown inlay crown group. The clinical effect of the restoration of all these teeth was compared after 2 years. Results No significant difference was detected in the success rate of three types of inlay crowns （ P 〉 0. 05）, but the failure rate of the inlay crowns in the pulp chamber group was significantly higher than that in the inlay crown group and the posterior inlay crown group（ P〈0.05 ）. Conclusion These three different retention forms have a good clinical effect on the restoration of short crown molars. Clinically, the right restoration method should be chosen according to the condition of the teeth when short crown molars are selected.

关 键 词：嵌体冠修复 短冠磨牙 

分 类 号：R783.3[医药卫生—口腔医学]