...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry >In vivo evaluation of three cleansing techniques for prepared abutment teeth.
【24h】

In vivo evaluation of three cleansing techniques for prepared abutment teeth.

机译:对准备的基牙的三种清洁技术的体内评估。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Statement of Problem. Residual provisional cement and debris on prepared teeth may have the potential to negatively influence the performance of the definitive luting agent. Purpose. This in vivo study quantified the adherence of provisional cement to abutment teeth prepared with 1 of 2 textures (coarse or fine) and cleaned with 1 of 3 common cleansing techniques. Material and Methods. One hundred ten provisional restorations in 22 patients were luted to maxillary anterior abutment teeth. The teeth were prepared for complete veneer restorations with either a coarse-grit diamond bur or a coarse-grit diamond bur followed by a fine-grit diamond bur. After removal of the restoration, abutment teeth were randomly cleansed with either a No. 23 dental explorer and air-water spray, a prophy cup with fine flour pumice, or a cotton pellet soaked in chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.12%. After the abutments were cleansed, they were evaluated intraorally under a light microscope (magnification, x64) by 2 blinded examiners. The teeth were given scores based on the number of specks of residual cement found on the surface after the cleansing techniques were performed. Pearson correlation coefficients (alpha=.96), 3-way analysis of variance, and post hoc Scheffe tests (P<.05) were used to analyze the data. Results. As determined with Pearson correlation coefficient, the interexaminer reliability was alpha=.96. Three-way analysis of variance revealed significant effects for the cleansing techniques but not for the interaction between cleansing techniques and preparation texture. A post hoc Scheffe test showed that the pumice cleansing technique (1.8 specks/tooth) was significantly better than the explorer or the cotton pellet/chlorhexidine gluconate technique (3.6 and 3.5 specks/tooth, respectively) (P<.05). Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, abutment teeth cleansed with a prophy cup and flour pumice exhibited the least amount of residual provisional cement.
机译:问题陈述。准备好的牙齿上残留的临时胶合剂和碎屑可能会对定形诱剂的性能产生负面影响。目的。这项体内研究量化了临时胶粘剂对用2种纹理(粗或细)中的1种制备的并用3种常见清洁技术中的1种清洁过的基台牙齿的附着力。材料与方法。 22例患者中的110个临时修复体被吸引至上颌前基牙。用粗砂轮或粗砂轮,再加粗砂轮,为牙齿的单板修复做好准备。取下修复体后,用23号牙齿探险器和空气喷雾器,带有细面粉浮石的洁牙杯或浸有0.12%葡萄糖酸氯己定的棉丸随机清洁基牙。清洗基台后,由两名盲法检查员在光学显微镜(放大倍数,x64)下对它们进行口内评估。根据执行清洁技术后在表面上发现的残留水泥斑点的数量,为牙齿评分。使用Pearson相关系数(alpha = .96),方差的三向分析和事后Scheffe检验(P <.05)来分析数据。结果。根据皮尔森相关系数确定,检查者间的可靠性为α= .96。对差异的三向分析表明,该清洁技术对清洁技术有显着影响,但对清洁技术与制备质地之间的相互作用没有影响。事后Scheffe测试表明,浮石清洁技术(每颗牙齿有1.8个斑点)明显优于探索者或棉丸/葡萄糖酸洗必太(分别为3.6和3.5个斑点)(P <.05)。结论。在本研究的范围内,用洁牙杯和浮石粉清洁过的基台牙齿残留的临时胶结物最少。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号