American journal of translational research · 2024
A comparative study of the prognostic outcomes of periodontal soft tissue health in traditional restoration and micro-invasive restoration with the use of microscopy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Peng, Zhang Lei, Chen Changxing, Yu Qing
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment efficacy of conventional restoration techniques versus micro-invasive restoration techniques utilizing a microscope in the restorative treatment for dental caries.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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).
CONCLUSION: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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).
CONCLUSION: 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.