氧化锆和钴铬合金烤瓷髓腔固位冠修复磨牙牙体大面积缺损的临床疗效比较

目的 探讨氧化锆和钴铬合金烤瓷髓腔固位冠修复磨牙牙体大面积缺损的临床疗效。方法 选取2017年6月—2018年12月在安徽医科大学附属口腔医院口腔综合科诊治的110例患者130颗磨牙的临床资料，根据随机数表法随机分为氧化锆及钴铬合金烤瓷髓腔固位冠组，氧化锆髓腔固位冠组(A组)56例67颗磨牙；钴铬合金烤瓷髓腔固位冠组(B组)54例63颗磨牙，在修复完成后的1年进行随访，评估2种材料的修复效果，并对2组患者治疗后1年的牙周情况进行比较。结果 氧化锆髓腔固位冠组患者在1年内共出现1例轻度边缘不密合、1例邻接关系微松、0例修复体或牙体存有轻微缺损及0例继发龋，钴铬合金烤瓷髓腔固位冠组患者在1年内共出现3例轻度边缘不密合、2例邻接关系微松、1例修复体或牙体存有轻微缺损及1例继发龋，差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05);氧化锆髓腔固位冠组患者治疗后的牙周探诊深度、龈沟出血指数和牙龈指数低于钴铬合金烤瓷髓腔固位冠组[(2.08±0.10)mm vs.(2.14±0.14)mm; 0.12 (0.04,0.23) vs. 0.19 (0.05,0.34);1.22±0.21 vs. 0.38±...

Comparison of clinical efficacy between zirconia and Co-Cr alloy porcelain endocrown in restoring molars with large coronal destruction

  Objective  To investigate the clinical effect of zirconia and Co-Cr alloy porcelain endocrown in restoring molars with large coronal destruction.  Methods  Clinical data of 130 molars from 110 patients treated in the Department of General Dentistry of the Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Anhui Medical University from June 2017 to December 2018 were selected and randomly divided into the zirconia and Co-Cr alloy porcelain endocrown groups. The zirconia endocrown group (Group A) with 67 molars (n=56) and the Co-Cr alloy porcelain endocrown (Group B) with 63 molars (n=54) were set using the random number table method. Follow-up was performed at 1 year after completion of restoration to evaluate the effect of the two types of material endocrown. The periodontal condition was compared between the two groups after 1-year treatment.  Results  During the 1-year recall period, 1 case of minor shortcomings in marginal adaptation and 1 case of slightly weak contact point without any restoration defect, tooth fracture and secondary caries were reported in the zirconia endocrown group. Meanwhile, 3 cases of minor shortcomings in marginal adaptation, 2 cases of slightly weak contact point, 1 case of restoration or tooth with slight defect and 1 case of secondary caries were reported in the Co-Cr alloy porcelain endocrown group. No statistically significant differences were found (all P>0.05). Periodontal probing depth, gingival sulcus bleeding index and gingival index were lower in group A than in group B [(2.08±0.10) mm vs. (2.14±0.14) mm; 0.12(0.04, 0.23) vs. 0.19(0.05, 0.34); 1.22±0.21 vs. 0.38±0.13, all P < 0.05].  Conclusion  Zirconia endocrown is better than porcelain endocrown in restoring molars with large coronal destruction.