华西口腔医学杂志

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

下颌切牙Empress 2瓷贴面与全瓷冠牙预备体及全瓷修复复合体的抗折裂研究

魏煦1 李彦2   

  1. 1.南京大学医学院附属口腔医院口腔修复科, 江苏南京210008;2.中山大学光华口腔医学院·附属口腔医院口腔修复科, 广东广州510055
  • 收稿日期:2009-12-25 修回日期:2009-12-25 出版日期:2009-12-20 发布日期:2009-12-20
  • 通讯作者: 李彦,Tel:020-83802805
  • 作者简介:魏煦(1979—),男,安徽人,住院医师,硕士

An in vitro study of the fracture strength of tooth preparations for Empress 2 veneers and crowns and mandibular incisors restored with Empress 2 veneers and crowns

WEI Xu1, LI Yan2   

  1. 1. Dept. of Prosthodontics, Stomatology Hospital Affiliated to Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210008, China; 2. Dept. of Prosthodontics, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510055, China
  • Received:2009-12-25 Revised:2009-12-25 Online:2009-12-20 Published:2009-12-20
  • Contact: LI Yan,Tel:020-83802805

摘要:

目的比较下颌切牙Empress 2瓷贴面和全瓷冠牙预备体及修复体粘接后复合体的抗折强度。方法选择人离体下颌切牙50颗,随机分为5组。A组为瓷贴面牙体预备组,B组为全瓷冠牙体预备组,C组为瓷贴面修复组,D组为全瓷冠修复组,E组为完整下颌切牙(对照组)。采用标准化牙体预备过程,Empress 2铸瓷系统及树脂粘接技术完成瓷贴面-牙体和全瓷冠-牙体复合体。使用Instron万能试验机测试5组牙齿的抗折裂载荷值,采用方差分析进行统计学分析。结果A、B、C、D、E组的抗折裂载荷值分别为:(576.11±91.53)、(204.13±85.88)、(451.50±116.81)、(386.16±117.75)、(566.05±121.37)N。经统计学分析,B组抗折裂载荷值低于其他组(P<0.01);A、E组间的差异无统计学意义,其值最高,高于其他组(P<0.05);C、D组间的差异也无统计学意义,其值低于A、E组,但高于B组(P<0.05)。结论下颌切牙瓷贴面预备后,牙体抗折能力无明显降低。下颌切牙Empress 2瓷贴面与全瓷冠粘接后,2种复合体的抗折裂能力无明显区别。

关键词: 下颌切牙, 可铸玻璃陶瓷, 瓷贴面, 全瓷冠

Abstract:

Objective To compare the fracture resistance of mandibular incisors′ preparations for veneers and crowns, mandibular incisors restored with Empress 2 veneers and crowns. Methods 50 human mandibular incisors were randomly divided into five groups. Each group consisted of ten teeth and the treatment obtained as follows: A, tooth preparations for veneers; B, tooth preparations for crowns; C, teeth restored with veneers; D, teeth restored with crowns; E, untreated group. The teeth received standardized preparation and the restorations were manufactured with Empress 2 system and cemented with resin luting agent. The fracture resistances of teeth were measured by Instron universal testing machine and statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA. Results The fracture resistances of A, B, C, D, E were (576.11±91.53), (204.13±85.88), (451.50±116.81), (386.16±117.75) and (566.05±121.37)N, respectively. The statistical analysis demonstrated significant differences between five groups. There were no significant differences between group A and E, group C and D. Conclusion Tooth preparations for veneers did not significantly reduce the fracture resistance of mandibular incisor. The fracture resistance of teeth restored with Empress 2 veneers and crowns did not significantly differ from each other.

Key words: mandibular incisor, castable ceramic, ceramic veneer, all ceramic crown