Glass fiber post versus metal post in repair of dental defects

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2015.16.015

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Post-core restoration of dental defects can restore the morphology and function of the teeth. Glass fiber post and casting metal post are commonly used in the post-core restoration, and have different repair effects.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of glass fiber post and metal post restoration for dental defects.
METHODS: 97 patients of dental defects in 146 teeth were divided into two groups, glass fiber post group (49 cases, 74 teeth) and casting metal post group (48 cases, 72 teeth). All patients were followed up for 12 months. Periodontal alkaline phosphatase levels, integrity of dental prosthetics, edge matching condition, color matching condition, crown post rupture, prosthetic loosening and dental root rupture were observed before repair and 24 hours after repair.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: At 24 months after repair, alkaline phosphatase levels in the casting metal post group were significantly increased compared with before repair (P < 0.05), and were obviously higher than that in the glass fiber post group (P < 0.05), there was no significant differen ce in the glass fiber post group before and
after repair (P > 0.05). The edge matching condition and color matching condition in the glass fiber post group were significantly better than that in the casting metal post group (P < 0.05). Six teeth in the glass fiber post group and 17 teeth in the casting metal post group appeared crown post rupture, and the successful repair rate in the glass fiber post group was significantly higher than that in the casting metal post group (91.9%, 76.4%, P < 0.05). Compared with casting metal post, glass fiber post can restore better appearance, better mechanical functions, higher success rate and fewer impact on periodontal tissue.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：生物材料；骨生物材料; 口腔生物材料; 纳米材料; 缓释材料; 材料相容性；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: Post and Core Technique, Dental Prosthesis, Alkaline Phosphatase

CLC Number:

R318

Kong De-rang. Glass fiber post versus metal post in repair of dental defects[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2015, 19(16): 2540-2544.

Figures/Tables 4

References

[1] 刘惠萍.玻璃纤维桩与铸造金属桩核在前牙修复中的应用对比观察[J].山东医药,2012,52(2):104-105.
[2] 常志明.玻璃纤维桩与金属桩核修复牙体缺损的比较[J].中国组织工程研究,2013,17(29):5309-5315.
[3] 贾素侠,李国宾,张志伟,等.玻璃纤维桩核与铸造金属桩核在前牙牙体缺损修复中的疗效比较[J].中国实用医药,2012,7(18):153-154.
[4] 秦德川,卓锋.不同桩核修复前牙牙体缺损的临床疗效观察[J].泰山医学院学报,2013,34(5):353-355.
[5] 杨丽俊,郭玲,程莉,等.前牙桩冠修复的临床体会[J].海南医学, 2011,22(17):89-90.
[6] 张红霞.玻璃纤维桩与铸造金属桩在前牙修复中的临床效果观察[J].感染、炎症、修复,2013,14(4):227,238.
[7] 郭蓉.玻璃纤维桩与金属铸造桩在前牙修复中的比较[J].口腔医学,2011,31(10):633-635.
[8] 唐震宇,蒋柏荣,蒋士勇,等.玻璃纤维桩修复残根残冠的效果[J].中国组织工程研究与临床康复,2010,14(51):9687-9690.
[9] 黄菊.牙体缺损修复中玻璃纤维桩与铸造金属桩的应用价值[J].中国组织工程研究,2014,17(47):7643-7647.
[10] 王敬娈,尚文静,张淑华,等.铸造金属桩与纤维桩在前牙残根残冠修复中的疗效观察[J].中国美容医学,2012,21(12):12.
[11] 张艳,冷雄刚.玻璃纤维桩在前牙缺损修复中的应用比较[J].中华全科医学,2010,8(8):1008-1009.
[12] 古海霞,黄朝辉,刘艳,等.铸造金属桩核和玻璃纤维桩在前牙修复中的疗效比较[J].浙江临床医学,2010,12(11):1203-1204.
[13] 张雪平.玻璃纤维桩与全瓷冠用于前牙修复的临床评价[J].浙江医学,2011,33(11):1654-1656.
[14] 丁波,孙晓梅.两种桩核系统在上前牙不同程度牙体缺损修复中临床疗效观察[J].中国美容医学,2011,20(6):978-980.
[15] 杨雷,张奇琼,杨秋野,等.玻璃纤维桩核冠修复在上前牙牙体缺损中的应用[J].吉林大学学报:医学版,2013,39(1):64.
[16] 李俊,陈昌晖,廖敏群,等.双锥度石英纤维桩与传统桩核冠修复在磨牙残根残冠保留中的应用[J].口腔医学,2012,32(4):254-255.
[17] 李琳,黄靖婕.不同桩核黏结性能的体外实验研究[J].实用临床医药杂志,2014,18(17):100-102.
[18] 吴晓飞,马杰,陈明远,等.玻璃纤维桩核与铸造金属桩核修复残根残冠的临床效果评价[J].安徽医学,2014,43(8):1113-1114.
[19] 李雁冰.三种桩核修复材料应用于磨牙残冠的临床评价[J].山西医药杂志,2014,43(8):919-922.
[20] 杜原宏,魏振辉,张鹏,等.高强度玻璃纤维复合树脂桩在前牙重度牙体缺损修复中的疗效[J].实用口腔医学杂志,2010,26(4):550-551.
[21] 高东.玻璃纤维桩在严重牙体缺损修复中的临床应用观察[J].中国医药指南,2014,12(24):140-141.
[22] 张德庆,黄芳.联合应用玻璃纤维桩和全瓷冠修复前牙牙体缺损的临床疗效探析[J].当代医药论丛,2014,12(14):246-248.
[23] 田云霞.纤维桩与铸造金属桩核修复大面积牙体缺损临床观察[J].河北医药,2013,35(3):410-411.
[24] 杜涓,周建玺.纤维桩与铸造金属桩核在修复大面积牙体缺损的临床效果比较[J].中国医药指南,2013,11(21):635-636.
[25] 姚森,冯红杰.玻璃纤维桩在前牙残根残冠修复中的效果观察[J].中国基层医药,2013,20(z1):27-28.
[26] 邱丙辉.玻璃纤维桩与金属桩核修复牙体缺损对比分析[J].吉林医学,2014,35(33):7423-7423,7424.
[27] 张磊,李晓利,谢秋菲,等.可塑性玻璃纤维桩修复牙本质肩领不完整的前牙牙体缺损观察[J].中华口腔医学杂志,2012,47(z1): 171-173.
[28] 孙宁宁,殷恺,李玉民,等.玻璃纤维桩长度和纤维含量对牙体抗折强度的影响[J].天津医药,2014,42(5):490-492.
[29] 张磊,李晓利,谢秋菲,等.可塑性玻璃纤维桩修复牙本质肩领不完整的前牙牙体缺损观察[C].//中华口腔医学会第14次全国口腔医学学术会议论文集,2012:171-173.
[30] 胡洁.玻璃纤维桩和铸造金属桩核在前牙残根残冠美学修复中的应用研究[J].中国保健营养(中旬刊),2014,25(7):4245-4245.
[31] 张双青.高强度纤维桩修复牙体缺损的临床疗效观察[J].世界最新医学信息文摘(电子版),2013,13(3):178-179.
[32] 胡彬彬,程杰.玻璃纤维桩在前牙牙体缺损修复中的应用[J].实用医技杂志,2011,18(11):1197-1198.
[33] 魏宁梅.玻璃纤维桩核在牙体缺损修复中的应用32例分析[J].中国误诊学杂志,2010,10(1):168-169.
[34] 向兰锋.前牙牙体缺损修复的桩核冠材质比较分析[J].中国美容医学,2014,23(9):753-756.
[35] 贺飞,周辉.纤维桩与铸造金属桩核在修复大面积牙体缺损的临床疗效比较[J].口腔医学研究,2012,28(8):829-830.
[36] 刘湘宁,周磊,熊坤,等.两种分体桩高嵌体修复无髓磨牙牙体缺损的评价[J].实用口腔医学杂志,2011,27(4):534-538.
[37] 李慧,崔广,伍小臻,等.不同材质桩核冠在前牙美学区修复的临床研究[J].中华临床医师杂志(电子版),2013,7(22):9980-9983.
[38] 郭灏涌,罗志平,陈震,等.玻璃纤维桩核与金属桩核修复牙体缺损的临床对比[J].医学美学美容(中旬刊),2013,8(12):74-75.
[39] 王海涛,刘成军,谢倩艺,等.观察纤维桩与金属桩在对牙体缺损进行桩核冠修复时临床效果[J].吉林医学, 2014,35(29):6520-6521.
[40] 巫颖泓.玻璃纤维桩和铸造金属桩在牙体缺损修复中的疗效比较[J].右江民族医学院学报,2010,32(6):911-912.