Ge Y J, Liu X Q
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2019 Feb 18;51(1):100-104. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.01.018.
To assess and compare the effects of loupes and microscope on laminate veneer preparation of the first practitioner from the aspects of efficiency, quality and accuracy of preparation, and preference.
Twenty young prosthodontists from the Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology were recruited into this study, which was prospective, single blind, self-control trials. The participants had no experience of using dental magnification devices. They prepared laminate veneers in the artificial dental model, under routine visual field (control group), 2.5× headwear loupes (loupes group), and 8× operating microscope (microscopic group) by turning. The time for tooth preparation was recorded. Thereafter, subjective assessments of efficiency, quality of preparation and preference were performed by themselves using visual analogue score (VAS). Expert assessments of quality and accuracy of preparation were performed by two professors using stereomicroscope and digital technique respectively.
In terms of efficiency, the subjective scores for the control group, loupes group and microscopic group were 7.15±1.73, 8.10±0.91 and 5.40±2.04, respectively. There was significant difference between the loupes group and microscopic group (P<0.05). The time of tooth preparation for the control group, loupes group and microscopic group was (430.10±163.04) s, (393.90±157.27) s and (441.95±164.18) s, respectively. There was significant difference between the loupes group and microscopic group (P<0.05). The loupes group was more efficient than the microscopic group. In terms of the quality of preparations, the subjective scores for the control group, loupes group and microscopic group were 6.55±2.09, 7.85±0.99 and 6.25±1.77, respectively. There was significant difference between the loupes group and microscopic group (P<0.05). The expert evaluations for the control group, loupes group and microscopic group were 12.20±1.67, 12.50±1.70 and 11.35±2.60, respectively. There was significant difference between the loupes group and microscopic group (P<0.05). The loupes group had higher quality than the microscopic group. In terms of the accuracy of preparations, the control group, loupes group and microscopic group of incisal 1/3 were (0.107±0.097) mm, (0.142±0.118) mm and (0.123±0.087) mm, respectively, of middle 1/3 were (0.128±0.073) mm, (0.113±0.105) mm and (0.125±0.077) mm, respectively, and of cervical 1/3 were (0.075±0.054) mm, (0.068±0.044) mm and (0.058±0.047) mm, respectively. There was no significant difference among the three groups (P>0.05). In terms of the preference, the subjective scores for the control group, loupes group and microscopic group were 6.55±2.31, 8.60±1.10 and 5.80±2.07, respectively. There was significant difference between the loupes group and microscopic group (P<0.05). The participants had the highest preference for loupes.
For the first practitioners, loupes is better than microscope for laminate veneer preparation.
从制备效率、质量、准确性及偏好方面评估和比较头戴放大镜和显微镜对初诊医生制作树脂贴面的影响。
选取北京大学口腔医学院修复科20名年轻修复医生，进行前瞻性、单盲、自身对照试验。参与者无使用牙科放大设备经验。他们在人工牙模型上，于常规视野下（对照组）、2.5倍头戴放大镜下（放大镜组）和8倍手术显微镜下（显微镜组）车削制作树脂贴面，记录备牙时间。之后，他们自己使用视觉模拟评分法（VAS）对效率、制备质量和偏好进行主观评估。由两位教授分别使用体视显微镜和数字技术对制备质量和准确性进行专家评估。
在效率方面，对照组、放大镜组和显微镜组的主观评分为分别为7.15±1.73、8.10±0.91和5.40±2.04。放大镜组与显微镜组之间有显著差异（P<0.05）。对照组、放大镜组和显微镜组的备牙时间分别为(430.10±163.04)s、(393.90±157.27)s和(441.95±164.18)s。放大镜组与显微镜组之间有显著差异（P<0.05）。放大镜组比显微镜组效率更高。在制备质量方面，对照组、放大镜组和显微镜组的主观评分为分别为6.55±2.09、7.85±0.99和6.25±1.77。放大镜组与显微镜组之间有显著差异（P<0.05）。对照组、放大镜组和显微镜组的专家评估分别为12.20±1.67、12.50±1.70和11.35±2.60。放大镜组与显微镜组之间有显著差异（P<0.05）。放大镜组质量高于显微镜组。在制备准确性方面，切1/3处对照组、放大镜组和显微镜组分别为(0.107±0.097)mm、(0.142±0.118)mm和(0.123±0.087)mm，中1/3处分别为(0.128±0.073)mm、(0.113±0.105)mm和(0.125±0.077)mm，颈1/3处分别为(0.075±0.054)mm、(0.068±0.044)mm和(0.058±0.047)mm。三组之间无显著差异（P>0.05）。在偏好方面，对照组、放大镜组和显微镜组的主观评分为分别为6.55±2.31、8.60±1.10和5.80±2.07。放大镜组与显微镜组之间有显著差异（P<0.05）。参与者对放大镜的偏好最高。
对于初诊医生，制作树脂贴面时头戴放大镜优于手术显微镜。
