Suppr超能文献

三种牙釉质剥脱术的宏观定性比较:我们能获得的最佳形状是什么?

Macro-qualitative Comparison of Three Enamel Stripping Procedures: What is the Best Shape We can get?

作者信息

Nassif Nahla, N Gholmieh Mona, Sfeir Elia, Mourad Ayman

机构信息

Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon.

Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon.

出版信息

Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2017 Oct-Dec;10(4):358-362. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1465. Epub 2017 Feb 27.

Abstract

AIM

Interdental stripping is a common clinical procedure in orthodontic therapy, by reshaping the proximal contacts. Handheld abrasive strips have been criticized as time-consuming process. Metallic strip system, diamond disk, or segment disks have become increasingly popular. The aim of this study is to evaluate the morphological aspects of remodeled dental surfaces so as to conclude which of the different techniques (disk, bur, or strip) used to reduce the mesiodistal diameter is the best to reproduce the initial contour of the proximal surface of the tooth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-nine pieces ("teeth") were prepared from permanent healthy teeth (premolars and molars) extracted for orthodontic reasons. They were mounted on a stand resembling the position of the natural teeth in a mild crowded dentition. The "teeth" are divided into three groups as follows: group S (strip): 26 "teeth," group D (disk): 25 "teeth," group B (bur): 28 "teeth." In order to study the changes, these prepared "teeth" are macro-photographed in groups of 5 before and after proximal grinding.

RESULTS

The "teeth" contours have been identified using piecewise cubic Hermit polynomials. The change in the contour has been traduced in terms of the change of curvature in the "teeth" contours. We used the z-test in order to find the confidence interval for the proportion of the class "+" for each of the techniques B, S, and D. With confidence level of 95%, we obtained the following confidence intervals:B = (0.6943; 0.9057); S = (0.9093; 1.0138); D = (0.6184; 0.8616)These results can be interpreted, as the technique S is significantly much better than the other two techniques if we aim at conserving the shape of the teeth before and after treatment.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the use of a strip for remodeling the proximal surface of a tooth is an optimal technique to preserve the proximal shape of the tooth although it requires more time.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The use of abrasive strip preserves the best shape of the proximal side. Abrasive strip could be the last step of any proximal reshaping technique. Nassif N, Gholmieh MN, Sfeir E, Mourad A. Macro-qualitative Comparison of Three Enamel Stripping Procedures: What is the Best Shape We can get? Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;10(4):358-362.

摘要

目的

牙间隙清洁条是正畸治疗中一种常见的临床操作,通过重塑邻面接触点来进行。手持磨砂条被批评为耗时的操作。金属条系统、金刚石盘或分段盘越来越受欢迎。本研究的目的是评估重塑后牙面的形态学特征,以便得出在用于减小近远中径的不同技术(盘、车针或条)中,哪种技术最能重现牙齿邻面的初始轮廓。

材料与方法

从因正畸原因拔除的健康恒牙(前磨牙和磨牙)制备79个“牙齿”样本。将它们安装在一个支架上,模拟轻度拥挤牙列中天然牙的位置。这些“牙齿”分为以下三组:S组(条):26个“牙齿”;D组(盘):25个“牙齿”;B组(车针):28个“牙齿”。为了研究变化情况,在近中面研磨前后,将这些制备好的“牙齿”按每组5个进行宏观拍照。

结果

使用分段三次埃尔米特多项式识别“牙齿”轮廓。轮廓变化通过“牙齿”轮廓曲率的变化来体现。我们使用z检验来确定技术B、S和D中每组“+”类比例的置信区间。在95%的置信水平下,我们得到以下置信区间:B = (0.6943; 0.9057);S = (0.9093; 1.0138);D = (0.6184; 0.8616)。如果我们旨在保持治疗前后牙齿的形状,这些结果可以解释为技术S明显优于其他两种技术。

结论

我们得出结论,尽管使用牙间隙清洁条重塑牙齿邻面需要更多时间,但它是保留牙齿邻面形状的最佳技术。

临床意义

使用磨砂条能保留邻面的最佳形状。磨砂条可以作为任何邻面重塑技术的最后一步。Nassif N, Gholmieh MN, Sfeir E, Mourad A. 三种釉质清洁程序的宏观定性比较:我们能得到的最佳形状是什么?《国际临床儿科牙科学杂志》2017年;10(4):358 - 362。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/937b/5789139/9447ac8680d8/ijcpd-10-358-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验