目的:本研究旨在比较聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)和氨基甲酸酯二甲基丙烯酸酯(UDMA)作为固定临时修复材料的临床结果,专注于处理属性,椅子时间,和牙周结果,由于它们在牙科实践中的普遍使用。
方法:对固定口腔修复科的150例患者进行了一项比较临床研究,大马士革大学,大马士革,叙利亚。接受牙冠和牙桥修复治疗的患者使用直接方法接受了两个固定的临时修复。第一,在基台准备后立即进行,使用PMMA。第二个,创建最终修复的临床后尝试,利用UDMA。两种修复都维持了一周。我们评估了主席时间,通过视觉模拟比例(VAS)处理属性,使用菌斑指数和牙龈指数和牙周健康。使用Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验来评估数据的正常性。使用Mann-WhitneyU检验分析两组在结果变量上的差异。显著性水平设定为(P<0.05)。
结果:化学活化PMMA树脂的处理性能优于光活化UDMA树脂。然而,UDMA树脂在坐椅时间和牙周结果方面优于UDMA树脂。PMMA的平均起椅时间为9.45±1.01分钟,UDMA的平均起椅时间为4.40±0.77分钟。在57.3%的PMMA修复体和44.0%的UDMA修复体中观察到轻度牙龈炎或牙菌斑积聚。在42.7%的PMMA修复物中注意到中度牙龈炎和牙菌斑积聚,而56.0%的UDMA修复体没有显示牙菌斑积聚或牙龈炎症。
结论:化学活化的PMMA树脂具有优异的处理性能,而光活化UDMA树脂在坐椅时间和牙周健康方面具有优势,使其成为临时修复的首选。局限性和未来研究:该研究仅限于短期结果,未评估修复体的长期耐久性或其对患者满意度的美学影响。建议进一步研究以评估这些材料的长期性能,他们的成本效益,以及它们的美学结果,以更全面地了解它们的临床效用。
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of polymethyl methacrylate (
PMMA) and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) as materials for fixed provisional restorations, focusing on handling properties, chair time, and periodontal outcomes, due to their prevalent use in dental practice.
METHODS: A comparative clinical study was conducted with 150 patients at the Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria. Patients undergoing prosthetic treatments with crowns and bridges received two fixed provisional restorations using a direct approach. The first, made immediately after abutment preparation, used
PMMA. The second, created post-clinical try-in of the final restoration, utilized UDMA. Both restorations were maintained for one week. We assessed chair time, handling properties via the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and periodontal health using the Plaque Index and Gingival Index. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess data normality. Differences between the two groups in the outcome variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was set at (P < 0.05).
RESULTS: The handling properties of chemically activated
PMMA resin were superior to those of light-activated UDMA resin. However, UDMA resin outperformed in terms of chair time and periodontal outcomes. The mean chair time was 9.45 ± 1.01 minutes for
PMMA and 4.40 ± 0.77 minutes for UDMA. Mild gingivitis or plaque accumulation was observed in 57.3% of PMMA restorations and 44.0% of UDMA restorations. Moderate gingivitis and plaque accumulation were noted in 42.7% of
PMMA restorations, while 56.0% of UDMA restorations showed no plaque accumulation or gingival inflammation.
CONCLUSIONS: Chemically activated PMMA resin offers excellent handling properties, whereas light-activated UDMA resin provides advantages in chair time and periodontal health, making it a preferable choice for provisional restorations. Limitations and future research: The study was limited to short-term outcomes and did not assess the long-term durability of the restorations or their aesthetic impact on patient satisfaction. Further studies are recommended to evaluate the long-term performance of these materials, their cost-effectiveness, and their aesthetic outcomes to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their clinical utility.