CAJ | 학술논문

目的：探讨不同脱敏剂对牙列缺损行固定桥修复牙体预备后牙本质过敏的影响。方法选取因牙列缺损就诊且行固定桥修复的患者90例，根据在固定修复牙体预备后采用的不同脱敏剂将患者分为保护膜和 Gluma 脱敏剂组，每组45例患者。比较两组患者治疗后疼痛感、临床疗效和患者满意度。结果治疗后两组的疼痛感均显著降低，而保护膜组患者疼痛感明显的低于 Gluma 脱敏剂组患者；保护膜组疗效显著的患者数以及总有效率均明显的高于 Gluma脱敏剂组患者，且差异具有统计学意义；两组患者的满意度的分布以及总满意度的差异均无统计学差异。结论牙本质保护膜措施应用于牙列缺损行固定桥修复牙体预备后患者改善疼痛和敏感的疗效明显的优于 Gluma 脱敏剂涂抹措施，值得临床推广。
목적：탐토불동탈민제대아렬결손행고정교수복아체예비후아본질과민적영향。방법선취인아렬결손취진차행고정교수복적환자90례，근거재고정수복아체예비후채용적불동탈민제장환자분위보호막화 Gluma 탈민제조，매조45례환자。비교량조환자치료후동통감、림상료효화환자만의도。결과치료후량조적동통감균현저강저，이보호막조환자동통감명현적저우 Gluma 탈민제조환자；보호막조료효현저적환자수이급총유효솔균명현적고우 Gluma탈민제조환자，차차이구유통계학의의；량조환자적만의도적분포이급총만의도적차이균무통계학차이。결론아본질보호막조시응용우아렬결손행고정교수복아체예비후환자개선동통화민감적료효명현적우우 Gluma 탈민제도말조시，치득림상추엄。
Objective To compare the effect of different desensitizers on dentin allergy in patients undergoing fixed bridge restoration tooth preparation for dentition defect. Methods Ninety patients with dentition defect for fixed bridge restoration,were divided into protective film group and Gluma desensitizer group according to the different desensitization agents used in fixed restoration of tooth preparation,45 patients in each group. Pain,clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction were compared between two groups after treatment. Results After the treatment,pain relief was observed in both groups,but it was more significantly in the protective film group. The total effective rate of the treatment was higher in protective film group than Gluma desensitizer group,and the difference was statistically significant. No difference was found in patient satisfaction rate between two groups. Conclusion The dentin protective film shows better effect on pain relief and hypersensitivity than Gluma desensitizer for fixed bridge restoration tooth preparation in patients with dentition defect.