应用不同印模技术制取固定修复印模的临床效果评价

发布时间：2018-08-28 12:35

【摘要】：目的通过对印模颈缘清晰度的比较，评价不同印模技术在固定修复印模制取中的临床效果。方法选取2012年12月-2014年1月来大连医科大学附属口腔医院修复科就诊的固定修复患者35例，基牙83颗。女性15例，，男性20例，其中年龄最小22岁，年龄最大58岁，平均年龄36.5岁。根据患者就诊顺序，依次选择取模方法：①成品托盘+藻酸盐+琼脂印模材（A组，基牙26颗）、②成品托盘+硅橡胶印模材（B组，基牙30颗）、③成品托盘+个齿托盘+硅橡胶印模材（C组，基牙27颗）。首先进行口腔专科检查，排除口腔卫生状况不佳、基牙松动、牙龈炎、牙周炎等影响印模清晰度的患者。然后进行常规金属烤瓷全冠牙体预备，颈缘位于龈下约0.5mm，全周135°肩台，宽度约为1mm，轴面牙合向聚合2°~5°。均在不排龈的情况下制取印模。根据印模颈缘的评定标准进行分级并记录，所得数据使用SPSS-19.0软件，在ɑ=0.05检验水准下，使用Kruskal-Wallis秩和检验进行统计学分析。结果根据印模颈缘评定标准，IV级不合格仅出现在A、B组中，分别为4例和3例。另外A组中除2例I级优秀外，其余20例为II级优良和III级合格。B组中I级优秀和II级优良均为10例，III级合格为7例。而C组中III级合格仅为2例，其余25例为I级优秀和II级优良，并且未发现不合格的IV级印模。经对上述结果应用SPSS-19.0统计软件进行Kruskal-Wallis秩和检验结果（见表2及图2）显示：3个实验组之间存在统计学差异（P0.05）；再经组间多重比较（见表3）显示：除A、B两组印模颈缘精度差异无统计学意义（p0.05）外，其它各组间均存在统计学差异（P0.05）。结论与成品托盘联合藻酸盐琼脂印模材技术和成品托盘联合硅橡胶印模技术相比，个齿托盘硅橡胶印模技术可更准确的复制固定修复预备体肩台及肩台下的解剖结构，得到更完整的印模龈沟翼，临床取模效果更好。
[Abstract]:Objective to evaluate the clinical effect of different impression techniques in fixing and repairing impression by comparing the definition of impression neck margin. Methods from December 2012 to January 2014, 35 patients with 83 abutments were selected from Department of Restoration, affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Dalian Medical University. 15 cases were female, 20 cases were male, the age was the youngest 22 years, the oldest 58 years old, the average age was 36.5 years old. According to the order of the patients' visit to the hospital, the method of taking out the mould in turn was selected as follows: 1 finished product alginate Agar impression material (A group, 26 abutment teeth) and 2 finished tray silicone rubber impression material (group B). There were 30 abutment teeth and 27 abutment teeth in group C, the finished product tray was made of silicone rubber impression material (group C, 27 abutments). First of all, oral examination was performed to exclude patients with poor oral hygiene, loose abutment, gingivitis and periodontitis. The cervical margin was about 0.5 mm in the subgingival region, the width was about 1 mm in the whole circumference of 135 掳shoulder abutment, and the axial surface occlusion was converging to 2 掳or 5 掳. All in the case of no gingival impression. According to the evaluation criteria of the neck margin of the impression, the data were classified and recorded. The data were analyzed statistically by using SPSS-19.0 software and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test under the level of 0.05 test. Results according to the evaluation criteria of impression neck margin, grade IV substandard only appeared in group A (4 cases) and group B (3 cases). In group A, except for 2 cases of excellent grade I, 20 cases were excellent in II grade and 7 cases in grade I and II grade in group B, respectively. In group C, only 2 cases were qualified in III grade, 25 cases were excellent in grade I and excellent in grade II, and no unqualified IV impression was found. The results of Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test with SPSS-19.0 software (see table 2 and figure 2) showed that there were statistical differences among the three experimental groups (P0.05). The multiple comparisons between the groups (see table 3) showed that there was no significant difference in the accuracy of the impression neck margin between the two groups (p0.05), but there were statistical differences among the other groups (P0.05). Conclusion compared with the technology of finished tray combined with alginate Agar and the technology of finished pallet and silicone rubber impression, the technology of single tooth tray silicone rubber impression can more accurately copy and fix the anatomic structure of shoulder table and shoulder table of the preparatory body. A more complete impression of gingival sulcus wing, clinical mold removal effect is better.
【学位授予单位】：大连医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R783

【参考文献】