中国实用口腔科杂志

中国实用口腔科杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (4): 433-436.DOI: 10.19538/j.kq.2021.04.009

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

放大镜与显微镜辅助下瓷贴面粘接效果比较研究

  

  1. 北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院a第二门诊部，b修复科；国家口腔医学中心；国家口腔疾病临床医学研究中心；口腔数字化医疗技术和材料国家工程实验室；北京  100081
  • 出版日期:2021-07-30 发布日期:2021-07-30
  • 通讯作者: 刘晓强
  • 基金资助:
    国家临床重点专科建设项目（2021）；中华口腔医学会青年临床科研基金（CSA-P2019-02）；北京大学口腔医院临床新技术新疗法项目（PKUSSNCT-19A03）

  • Online:2021-07-30 Published:2021-07-30

摘要： 目的　比较研究应用放大镜与显微镜进行瓷贴面粘接的效果。方法    选择北京大学口腔医院第二门诊部5名医生进行前瞻性、单盲、自身对照试验。5名医生均掌握放大镜与显微镜的使用方法和瓷贴面的粘接方法，但没有使用放大镜与显微镜辅助进行瓷贴面粘接的经验。每名医生依次在常规视野下（对照组）、2.5倍头戴式放大镜下（放大镜组）和6倍牙科显微镜下（显微镜组）于仿头模内完成右上中切牙瓷贴面粘接。每组每名医生完成4例瓷贴面粘接，每组合计20例；总计60例。试验过程中记录仿头模内瓷贴面粘接所需时间，即操作时间。操作完成后，利用21.25倍显微镜拍摄数码照片，由高级职称专家利用软件盲法测量瓷贴面边缘间隙和残留水门汀面积。结果    在操作效率方面，放大镜组、显微镜组和对照组的操作时间分别为（150.01 ± 27.94）、（281.28 ± 52.92）、（180.05 ± 36.26）s，三组间差异有统计学意义（F = 57.973，P < 0.05）；且放大镜组的操作时间明显短于显微镜组，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。在修复体边缘密合性方面，放大镜组、显微镜组和对照组瓷贴面边缘间隙分别为（83.54 ± 7.92）、（114.89 ± 26.93）、（93.43 ± 11.76）μm，三组间差异有统计学意义（F = 16.628，P < 0.05）；且放大镜组瓷贴面边缘间隙明显小于显微镜组，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。在水门汀清除效果方面，放大镜组、显微镜组和对照组的残留水门汀面积分别为（1.47 ± 0.41）、（2.38 ± 1.50）、（2.41 ± 0.73）mm2，三组间差异有统计学意义（F = 5.781，P < 0.05）；且放大镜组的残留水门汀面积小于显微镜组，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。结论    相较于显微镜，放大镜用于瓷贴面粘接的操作效率更高、修复体边缘密合性更好、水门汀清除效果更佳。

关键词: 牙科设备, 放大镜, 显微镜, 粘接, 贴面

Abstract: To assess and compare the effects of loupes and microscope on cementing of veneer. Methods    Five general dentists from the Second Divison of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology were recruited into this study，which was prospective，single blind，self-control trials. The five participants mastered the usage of loupes and microscope，and methods of cementing of veneer. However，they had no experience of cementing of veneer under dental magnification devices. They performed veneer bonding in routine visual field（control group），with 2.5× headwear loupes（loupes group），and with 6 × dental microscope（microscopic group）in turn. They completed 4 cases of veneer cementing for each group, and there were 20 cases in each group and 60 cases in total. The time of cementing of veneer was recorded as operating time. After that，digital photographs were taken using a 21.25×microscope. The marginal fitness and residual resin cement were assessed by an expert using ImageJ software. Results  The operating time for the loupes group，microscopic group，and the control group were（150.01 ± 27.94），（281.28 ± 52.92），and（180.05 ± 36.26）s，respectively. There was a significant difference among these groups（F = 57.973，P < 0.05）. The loupes group was more efficient than the microscopic group（P < 0.05）. The marginal fitness of loupes group，microscopic group，and the control group was（83.54 ± 7.92），（114.89 ± 26.93），and（93.43 ± 11.76）μm，respectively. There was a significant difference among these groups（F = 16.628，P < 0.05）. The marginal fitness was better in the loupes group than in the microscopic group（P < 0.05）. The area of residual resin cement of loupes group，microscopic group，and the control group was（1.47 ± 0.41），（2.38 ± 1.50），and（2.41 ± 0.73）mm2，respectively. There was a significant difference among these groups（F = 5.781，P < 0.05）. The cleaning effect of residual resin cement was better in the loupes group than in the microscopic group（P < 0.05）. Conclusion    The loupes is better than microscope for cementing of veneer in terms of clinical efficiency，marginal fitness of veneer，and cleaning of residual resin cement.