常规与增材制造稳定夹板的临床比较。

Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2018-08-13 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1080/23337931.2018.1497491
Christian Berntsen, Martin Kleven, Marianne Heian, Carl Hjortsjö
{"title":"常规与增材制造稳定夹板的临床比较。","authors":"Christian Berntsen,&nbsp;Martin Kleven,&nbsp;Marianne Heian,&nbsp;Carl Hjortsjö","doi":"10.1080/23337931.2018.1497491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare conventional and digital additive manufacturing of hard occlusal stabilization splints (SS) using technical and clinical parameters. 14 subjects were subjected to DC/TMD Axis I clinical examination protocol and Axis II questionnaire. The subjects underwent treatment with splints over a period of 12 weeks. All subjects underwent both conventional alginate impression and intraoral digital scanning. Seven subjects received conventional manufactured stabilization splints (CM-SS), and seven subjects received CAD-CAM additive manufactured stabilization splints (AM-SS). 12 subjects completed the 12 weeks follow-up period. The subjects significantly preferred digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional alginate impression. There was a significant difference in VAS between CM-SS and AM-SS. The mean VAS result was 15 for AM-SS and 42 for CM-SS, 0 represented excellent comfort and 100 very uncomfortable. This was significant. Splint manufacturing method had no influence on treatment outcome. There was no significant difference in mean delta change for unassisted jaw opening from baseline to 12 weeks between the two groups, for CM-SS it was 2 mm difference and for AM-SS the difference was 3 mm. All subjects in both treatment groups showed improved oral function. In this study, the scanning procedure is more accepted by the subjects than alginate impressions, however the first procedure was more time consuming.</p>","PeriodicalId":6997,"journal":{"name":"Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica Scandinavica","volume":"4 1","pages":"81-89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23337931.2018.1497491","citationCount":"28","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints.\",\"authors\":\"Christian Berntsen,&nbsp;Martin Kleven,&nbsp;Marianne Heian,&nbsp;Carl Hjortsjö\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23337931.2018.1497491\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare conventional and digital additive manufacturing of hard occlusal stabilization splints (SS) using technical and clinical parameters. 14 subjects were subjected to DC/TMD Axis I clinical examination protocol and Axis II questionnaire. The subjects underwent treatment with splints over a period of 12 weeks. All subjects underwent both conventional alginate impression and intraoral digital scanning. Seven subjects received conventional manufactured stabilization splints (CM-SS), and seven subjects received CAD-CAM additive manufactured stabilization splints (AM-SS). 12 subjects completed the 12 weeks follow-up period. The subjects significantly preferred digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional alginate impression. There was a significant difference in VAS between CM-SS and AM-SS. The mean VAS result was 15 for AM-SS and 42 for CM-SS, 0 represented excellent comfort and 100 very uncomfortable. This was significant. Splint manufacturing method had no influence on treatment outcome. There was no significant difference in mean delta change for unassisted jaw opening from baseline to 12 weeks between the two groups, for CM-SS it was 2 mm difference and for AM-SS the difference was 3 mm. All subjects in both treatment groups showed improved oral function. In this study, the scanning procedure is more accepted by the subjects than alginate impressions, however the first procedure was more time consuming.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"81-89\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23337931.2018.1497491\",\"citationCount\":\"28\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23337931.2018.1497491\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23337931.2018.1497491","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

摘要

本研究的目的是比较传统和数字增材制造的硬咬合稳定夹板(SS)的技术和临床参数。14名受试者进行DC/TMD轴I临床检查方案和轴II问卷调查。受试者接受了为期12周的夹板治疗。所有受试者都进行了常规的藻酸盐印模和口内数字扫描。7名受试者接受常规制造的稳定夹板(CM-SS), 7名受试者接受CAD-CAM添加剂制造的稳定夹板(AM-SS)。12名受试者完成了12周的随访期。与传统的藻酸盐印模相比,受试者明显更喜欢数字口内扫描。CM-SS与AM-SS的VAS评分差异有统计学意义。AM-SS的平均VAS评分为15分,CM-SS的平均VAS评分为42分,0分代表非常舒适,100分代表非常不舒服。这很重要。夹板制作方法对治疗效果无影响。从基线到12周,两组之间无辅助颌开口的平均δ变化无显著差异,CM-SS的差异为2mm, AM-SS的差异为3mm。两组患者的口腔功能均有所改善。在本研究中,扫描程序比藻酸盐印模更容易被受试者接受,然而第一个程序更耗时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints.

The aim of this study was to compare conventional and digital additive manufacturing of hard occlusal stabilization splints (SS) using technical and clinical parameters. 14 subjects were subjected to DC/TMD Axis I clinical examination protocol and Axis II questionnaire. The subjects underwent treatment with splints over a period of 12 weeks. All subjects underwent both conventional alginate impression and intraoral digital scanning. Seven subjects received conventional manufactured stabilization splints (CM-SS), and seven subjects received CAD-CAM additive manufactured stabilization splints (AM-SS). 12 subjects completed the 12 weeks follow-up period. The subjects significantly preferred digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional alginate impression. There was a significant difference in VAS between CM-SS and AM-SS. The mean VAS result was 15 for AM-SS and 42 for CM-SS, 0 represented excellent comfort and 100 very uncomfortable. This was significant. Splint manufacturing method had no influence on treatment outcome. There was no significant difference in mean delta change for unassisted jaw opening from baseline to 12 weeks between the two groups, for CM-SS it was 2 mm difference and for AM-SS the difference was 3 mm. All subjects in both treatment groups showed improved oral function. In this study, the scanning procedure is more accepted by the subjects than alginate impressions, however the first procedure was more time consuming.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Anti-demineralization effect of desensitizer containing copolymer and sodium fluoride on root dentin - a transverse microradiographic study. Fracture resistance of simulated immature teeth treated with a regenerative endodontic protocol. Debonding mechanism of zirconia and lithium disilicate resin cemented to dentin. The effect of antimicrobial additives on the properties of dental glass-ionomer cements: a review. An in vitro model to assess effects of a desensitising agent on bacterial biofilm formation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1