Wang Peng, Zhang Lei, Chen Changxing, Yu Qing
Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Institute of Stomatology, Nanjing University Nanjing 210008, Jiangsu, China.
Am J Transl Res. 2024 Sep 15;16(9):4761-4769. doi: 10.62347/SPPS5166. eCollection 2024.
To compare the treatment efficacy of conventional restoration techniques versus micro-invasive restoration techniques utilizing a microscope in the restorative treatment for dental caries.
The clinical information of 84 patients who received restorative treatment for dental caries was retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of restoration they received. The control group (n=42) underwent traditional restorative treatment, while the observation group (n=42) underwent micro-invasive restoration with the use of a microscope. The restoration effect, marginal fit, periodontal soft tissue health (Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) score), prognostic outcomes, satisfaction rate, and doctor's posture health were compared between the two groups.
The success restoration rate was 92.86% in the control group and 95.24% in the observation group (P > 0.05). The vertical marginal discrepancy, horizontal marginal discrepancy, and absolute marginal discrepancy values were significantly lower in the observation group compared to the control group (all P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in pre-treatment OHIP-14 scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the post-treatment OHIP-14 score was significantly lower in the observation group compared to the control group (P < 0.05). After a 12-month follow-up, the observation group showed higher proportions of A-level restoration integrity, marginal fit, gingival health, fewer secondary caries, and less food impaction compared to the control group (all P < 0.05). The satisfaction rate in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (95.24% vs. 92.86%, P < 0.05). The posture score of doctors in the observation group was significantly better than that in the control group (P < 0.05).
Micro-invasive restoration using a microscope, compared to traditional restoration, offers several advantages. It reduces marginal discrepancies, improves periodontal soft tissue health, and enhances prognostic outcomes for patients, while ensuring a satisfactory restoration effect.
比较传统修复技术与使用显微镜的微创修复技术在龋病修复治疗中的疗效。
回顾性分析84例接受龋病修复治疗患者的临床资料。根据患者接受的修复类型将其分为两组。对照组（n = 42）接受传统修复治疗，而观察组（n = 42）使用显微镜进行微创修复。比较两组的修复效果、边缘适合性、牙周软组织健康状况（口腔健康影响程度量表-14（OHIP-14）评分）、预后结果、满意率和医生姿势健康状况。
对照组的成功修复率为92.86%，观察组为95.24%（P>0.05）。观察组的垂直边缘差异、水平边缘差异和绝对边缘差异值均显著低于对照组（均P<0.05）。两组治疗前OHIP-14评分无显著差异（P>0.05）。然而，观察组治疗后的OHIP-14评分显著低于对照组（P<0.05）。随访12个月后，观察组在A级修复完整性、边缘适合性、牙龈健康方面的比例高于对照组，继发龋和食物嵌塞更少（均P<0.05）。观察组的满意率显著高于对照组（95.24%对92.86%，P<0.05）。观察组医生的姿势评分显著优于对照组（P<0.05）。
与传统修复相比，使用显微镜的微创修复具有多种优势。它减少了边缘差异，改善了牙周软组织健康状况，提高了患者的预后结果，同时确保了令人满意的修复效果。
