Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Medical firm Vital EBB, Ekaterinburg, Russia.
Institute of Immunology and Physiology (IIP) of the Ural Division of Russian Academy of Sciences, laboratory of immunopathophysiology, Ekaterinburg, Russia.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019 May;31(3):290-294. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12456. Epub 2019 Feb 20.
Among the techniques used by pediatric dentists for the crown fracture is the fragment reattachment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival of the tooth reattachment in comparison to the composite restoration technique.
The study included 67 patients aged 7-9 years (males 38/56.7%; females 29/43.3%), with noncomplicated fractures of permanent teeth. The patients were divided into two groups; group A included 32 patients (males 18/56.2%; females 14/43.8%; total number of affected tooth 36), and group B comprised 35 patients (males 20/57.1%; females 15/42.9%; 36 affected tooth). In group A patients the reattachment was conducted after the trauma, and the direct composite restoration technique was used for patients in group B. All patients were evaluated for complications and pulp status for 5 years.
There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in terms of the occurrence of complications observed between groups throughout the 5-year observation period.
Both methods provide similar results over the 60 months of observation.
Reattachment technique has shown to be a reliable treatment option that might be considered as a primary technique when the fragment is saved after the trauma.
在儿科牙医用于冠折的技术中，有碎片再附着技术。本研究的目的是比较牙齿再附着技术与复合修复技术的长期存活率。
本研究纳入了 67 名年龄在 7-9 岁的患者（男性 38/56.7%；女性 29/43.3%），均患有非复杂性恒牙折裂。患者分为两组；A 组包括 32 名患者（男性 18/56.2%；女性 14/43.8%；共 36 颗受累牙），B 组包括 35 名患者（男性 20/57.1%；女性 15/42.9%；36 颗受累牙）。A 组患者在创伤后进行再附着，B 组患者则采用直接复合修复技术。所有患者在 5 年内均评估并发症和牙髓状况。
在整个 5 年观察期内，两组患者并发症的发生情况无显著差异（P>0.05）。
两种方法在 60 个月的观察期内均能获得相似的结果。
再附着技术是一种可靠的治疗选择，当碎片在创伤后保存时，可以考虑作为首选技术。
