论文部分内容阅读
目的比较金属桩口腔修复与预成纤维桩口腔修复效果。方法将2014年7月至2015年7月商丘市中心医院68例行口腔修复患者依据修复方式分为两组。观察组(34例)实施预成纤维桩口腔修复,对照组(34例)实施传统的金属桩口腔修复。通过观察两组口腔修复时间和修复半年后患者牙周指数[牙松动度、探诊深度(PD)、出血指数(BI)菌斑指数(PLI)]来比较两组修复近期疗效;比较修复半年后两组修复疗效和满意度。结果观察组口腔修复时间(66.78±11.14)min、修复半年后牙松动度(0.48±0.15)、PD(2.52±0.96)、PLI(0.52±0.16)、BI(0.74±0.23),均较对照组显著较低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。修复半年后,观察组成功率97.06%、满意度94.12%,均较对照组显著较高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与传统的金属桩口腔修复相比,预成纤维桩口腔修复所用时间短,患者满意度较高,牙周指数均相对较好,疗效尤佳,可在临床上广泛使用。
Objective To compare the effect of metal post repair and pre-fiber post repair. Methods From July 2014 to July 2015, 68 patients undergoing oral repair in Shangqiu Central Hospital were divided into two groups according to the method of repair. In the observation group (34 cases), pre-staple fiber posts were reconstructed, while those in the control group (34 cases) were performed conventional metal posts. The short-term curative effect was compared between the two groups by observing the time of oral rehabilitation and the periodontal index (tooth mobility, probing depth (PD), bleeding plaque index (PLI) After two groups to repair the efficacy and satisfaction. Results The oral cavity repair time (66.78 ± 11.14) min in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (0.48 ± 0.15), PD (2.52 ± 0.96), PLI (0.52 ± 0.16) and BI Significantly lower, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). After half a year of repair, the success rate of observation group was 97.06%, satisfaction rate was 94.12%, which was significantly higher than that of control group (P <0.05). Conclusion Compared with the traditional metal post repair, prefabricated fiber post repair time is short, patients with higher satisfaction, the periodontal index are relatively good, the curative effect is better, can be widely used in clinical.