不同印模技术制取固定修复印模的临床效果评价

Evaluation of the Clinical Effect of Different Impression Techniques in the Preparation of Fixed Restoration Impressions

摘要:

〔摘 要〕 目的：比较应用不同印模技术制取固定修复印模的临床效果。 方法：选择商丘市中心医院口腔科 2020 年 10 月至 2021 年 12 月收治的固定修复复诊患者共计 22 例，基牙共计 56 颗为研究对象。按照患者入院就诊顺序分别 采取不同的印模技术制取固定修复印模方法，甲组（成品托盘＋藻酸盐＋琼脂印模）基牙 18 颗；乙组（成品托盘＋ 硅橡胶印模）基牙 20 颗；丙组（成品托盘＋个齿托盘＋硅橡胶印模）基牙 18 颗。分别对患者的基牙进行制取印模， 将制取印模得出的数据进行记录，分析应用不同印模技术制取固定修复印模的临床效果。 结果：甲组患者修复印模中 优秀为 4 例，良好 7 例，合格 5 例，不合格 2 例；乙组患者修复印模中优秀为 6 例，良好 5 例，合格 6 例，不合格 3 例； 丙组患者修复印模中优秀为 8 例，良好 9 例，合格 1 例，不合格 0 例；乙组和丙组优秀率高于甲组，差异均具有统计 学意义（P ＜ 0.05），且丙组未有不合格印模；Kruskal–Wallis 秩和检验组间多重比较的结果显示，甲乙两组之间的 印模精度比较，差异无统计学意义（P ＞ 0.05），而丙组与甲、乙组之间的差异均具有统计学意义（P ＜ 0.05）。 结论： 相较于其他两种印模技术而言，个齿托盘＋硅橡胶印模技术的印模效果更好，能够清晰呈现出患者预备体肩台以及肩 台下对应的解剖结构，有助于印模龈沟翼的修复。

Abstract:

〔Abstract〕 Objective To compare the clinical effects of different impression techniques in making fixed restoration impressions. Methods A total of 22 patients with fixed prosthesis and a total of 56 abutment teeth who were admitted to the Department of Stomatology of Shangqiu Central Hospital from October 2020 to December 2021 were selected as the research objects. According to the patient's admission order, different impression techniques were used to make fixed restoration impressions. Group A (finished tray plus alginate plus agar impression) had 18 abutment teeth; group B (finished tray plus silicone rubber impression material) had 20 abutments teeth; group C (finished tray plus single tooth tray plus silicone rubber impression) had 18 abutment teeth. Impressions were made on the patient's abutments, and the data obtained from the impressions were recorded, and the clinical effects of different impression techniques in making fixed restoration impressions were analyzed. Results In group A, 4 cases were excellent, 7 cases were good, 5 cases were qualified, and 2 cases were unqualified. In group B, 6 cases were excellent, 5 cases were good, 6 cases were qualified, and 3 cases were unqualified. In group C, 8 cases were excellent, 9 cases were good, 1 case was qualified, and 0 case was unqualified. The excellent rates of group B and group C were higher than that of group A, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05), and no unqualified impression was found in group C; Kruskal-wallis rank sum test showed that there was no significant difference in the impression accuracy between group A and group B (P > 0.05), while there were significant differences between group C and group A and Group B (P < 0.05). Conclusion Compared with the other two impression techniques, the impression effect of the individual tooth tray plus silicone rubber impression technique is better, and it can clearly show the patient's prepared shoulder and the corresponding anatomical structure under the shoulder, which is helpful for the repair of the sulcus wing of the impression.