上海口腔医学

上海口腔医学 ›› 2017, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (6): 619-622.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2017.06.010

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同激光处理60颗磨损后牙的临床疗效观察

孙海燕, 仇丽鸿, 杨谛   

  1. 中国医科大学附属口腔医院 牙体牙髓病科,辽宁 沈阳 110002
  • 收稿日期:2017-02-09 修回日期:2017-06-12 出版日期:2017-12-20 发布日期:2018-01-09
  • 通讯作者: 仇丽鸿，E-mail:drqlh@yahoo.com
  • 作者简介:孙海燕（1983-），女，主治医师，讲师，在读博士研究生，E-mail：125437771@qq.com

Clinical observation on different kinds of laser on 60 molars with abrasion

SUN Hai-yan, QIU Li-hong, YANG Di   

  1. Department of Endodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University. Shenyang 110002, Liaoning Province, China
  • Received:2017-02-09 Revised:2017-06-12 Online:2017-12-20 Published:2018-01-09

PDF (PC)

174

摘要： 目的: 评价2种不同激光联合自酸蚀粘结系统处理磨损后牙的临床疗效。方法: 选取符合纳入标准的30例患者的60颗牙（磨损程度相似）,磨牙与磨牙配对,前磨牙与前磨牙配对,按计算机生成的随机数据表分为实验组和对照组,分别采用Er,Cr:YSGG激光和Nd:YAG激光联合AdperTM Easy One处理磨损牙表面, Z350复合树脂分层充填,以改良美国公共卫生署标准评价修复后 1、6、12、18 个月的疗效。采用SPSS 13.0软件包对数据进行χ2 检验或Fisher 确切概率检验。结果: 固位方面,12个月时,实验组固位B级率优于对照组,差异具有显著性（P<0.05）;18个月时,实验组固位情况优于对照组,差异具有显著性（P<0.05）。牙髓牙本质反应方面,1、6、12、18个月相比较,实验组与对照组差异无显著性（P>0.05）;2组总疗效相比较,差异无显著性（P>0.05）。结论: Er,Cr:YSGG激光和Nd:YAG激光联合AdperTM Easy One处理磨损牙表面后,均可获得较为满意的临床效果,但是2种激光相比,前者能够获得更好的粘结强度,可作为临床上治疗磨损后牙修复的首选激光。

关键词: Er, Cr:YSGG激光, Nd:YAG激光, 复合树脂, 磨损牙

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical effect of different kinds of laser on 60 molars with abrasion. METHODS: Thirty patients with 60 abrasive molars were selected according to the inclusion criteria. Molars and premolars were divided into 2 groups randomly. Teeth in the experimental group were treated with Er,Cr:YSGG laser combined with AdperTM Easy One, while teeth in the control group were treated with Nd:YAG laser combined with AdperTM Easy One, composite resin Z350 was selected to restore the defect. The modified USPHS criteria was used to evaluate the treatment effects at recall periods.The data were analyzed using SPSS 13.0 software package. RESULTS: On retention, the B level rate of the experimental group was significantly lower than that of the control group(P<0.05) 12 months later. For success rate at 18 months,the difference between the experimental group and the control group was significant（P<0.05）. At the same time, sensitivity of tooth and overall response in the two groups had no significant difference (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall response between the two groups had no significant difference,Er,Cr:YSGG laser shows better effect of retention, which is the preferred option for treatment of abrasive molars.

Key words: Er,Cr:YSGG laser, Nd:YAG laser, Composite resin, Abrasive molar

中图分类号: