目的:评估三种临时胶泥的恢复损失率,生物相互作用,美学属性,和处理特性。
方法:75名需要固定口腔修复的成年人自愿参加了单盲手术,随机对照试验。准备之后,用随机选择的临时修补水泥(ProvicolQMPlus(PQP),BifixTemp(BT),或ProvicolQM美学(PQA))。在胶结后一到两周进行临床检查。评估了以下标准:牙齿活力,打击乐器,超敏反应,牙龈出血,气味形成,美学,水泥处理,可移除性,可清洁性,和保留损失。拮抗牙齿作为对照。采用配对t检验进行统计学分析,单向方差分析,皮尔森卡方检验和费舍尔精确检验,在适当的地方。
结果:临时修复的总体损失率为16.0%,显示没有水泥特异性差异。无论水泥类型如何,术后过敏均发生在8%的病例中。31%的PQP固定修复体报告了美学损伤,与BT和PQA粘结修复体的4.0%和4.2%相比。据报道,在100%的情况下,水泥应用很容易,过量去除88-96%,取决于使用的水泥。
结论:选择luting材料会影响临时修复的美学外观,应予以考虑,特别是在美学要求苛刻的区域的修复。在生物相容性方面,水泥之间没有显著差异。处理,和损失率。
结论:半透明水泥有助于减少颜色干扰,导致临时修复的外观更具吸引力。
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate three temporary luting cements in terms of their restoration loss rates, biological interactions, esthetic properties, and handling characteristics.
METHODS: 75 adults requiring fixed prosthodontics voluntarily participated in a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. After preparation, temporary restorations were luted with a randomly selected temporary luting cement (either Provicol QM Plus (PQP), Bifix Temp (BT), or Provicol QM Aesthetic (PQA)). Clinical examinations were performed one to two weeks after
cementation. The following criteria were evaluated: tooth vitality, percussion, hypersensitivity, gingival bleeding, odor formation, esthetics, cement handling, removability, cleanability, and retention loss. Antagonistic teeth served as controls. Statistical analysis was performed using the paired t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson\'s chi-square and Fisher\'s exact test, where appropriate.
RESULTS: The overall loss rate of temporary restorations was 16.0%, showing no cement-specific differences. Postoperative hypersensitivity occurred in 8% of cases regardless of cement type. Esthetic impairment was reported by 31% of the PQP-fixed restorations, compared with 4.0% and 4.2% of the BT and PQA-bonded restorations. Cement application was reported to be easy in 100% of cases, excess removal in 88-96%, depending on the cement used.
CONCLUSIONS: The choice of luting material affects the esthetic appearance of a temporary restoration and should be considered, particularly in restorations in esthetically demanding areas. No significant differences between the cements were identified regarding biocompatibility, handling, and loss rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Translucent cements can help to reduce color interferences, resulting in a more appealing appearance of the temporary restoration.