口腔医学 ›› 2022, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (12): 1104-1108.doi: 10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2022.12.010

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

可摘局部义齿钴铬铸造支架和数字化打印支架的临床失败率对比

杨雷宁1, 杨茜2, 赵君娜1, 夏慧育3, 韩晓鹏1   

  1. 1 滨州医学院附属烟台市口腔医院修复科,山东烟台(264000);
    2 滨州医学院口腔医学系,山东烟台(264000);
    3 滨州医学院附属烟台市口腔医院修复工艺科,山东烟台(264000)
  • 收稿日期:2022-09-05 出版日期:2022-12-28 发布日期:2022-12-28
  • 通讯作者: 韩晓鹏 E-mail:hanxp8@sohu.com
  • 基金资助:
    2021年滨州医学院教学改革与研究项目(JYKTMS2021071)

Comparison of clinical failure ratebetween traditional removable partial dentures and digitally printed Cobalt-Chromium frameworks

YANG Leining, YANG Qian, ZHAO Junna, XIA Huiyu, HAN Xiaopeng   

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Yantai Stomatological Hospital Affiliated to Binzhou Medical University, Yantai 264000, China
  • Received:2022-09-05 Online:2022-12-28 Published:2022-12-28

摘要: 目的 对比可摘局部义齿钴铬铸造支架和数字化打印支架的临床失败率差异。方法 通过回顾性研究,追踪2020—2021年通过铸造技术和数字化打印技术(SLM)制作的可摘局部义齿钴铬合金金属支架1 020例,统计临床失败率差异,分析失败原因。结果 钴铬合金传统铸造支架的临床失败率略高于SLM支架。铸造支架失败的主要原因是支架精密性不良(如不稳定和就位不良等),占3.42%;折断率较低,占0.22%。SLM支架失败的主要原因是支架折断,占1.75%;精密性不良占0.88%。两种支架的大连接体折断率有统计学差异,其余失败原因均无统计学差异。结论 钴铬合金传统铸造支架的临床失败率略高于SLM支架,铸造支架失败的主要原因是支架精密性不良,SLM支架失败的主要原因是支架折断。

关键词: 钴铬, 支架, 铸造, 数字化打印, 失败率

Abstract: Objective To compare and analyze differences in clinical failure rate of removable partial dentures (RPD) Cobalt-Chromium (Co-Cr) frameworks made by conventional methods and digital printing methods. Methods From 2020 to 2021,1 020 RPD Co-Cr frameworks made by conventional methods and digital printing methods (selective laser melting, SLM) were analyzed retrospectively, and clinical failure rate and factors affecting the failure were analyzed. Results Clinical failure rate of conventional casting Co-Cr frameworks was slightly higher than that of SLM frameworks. The main reason for the failure of casting frameworks was poor precision with an incidence of 3.42%, and followed by the fracture rate, accounting for 0.22%. The main reasons for the failure of SLM frameworks were fracture and poor precision with an incidence of 1.75% and 0.88%, respectively. There was a statistical difference in the fracture rate of large junction between the two frameworks, and there was no statistical difference in other failure factors. Conclusion The clinical failure rate of conventional Co-Cr frameworks is slightly higher than that of SLM frameworks. The main reason for failure of casting framework is poor precision, while the main reason for SLM framework failure is fracture.

Key words: Cobalt-Chromium, framework, casting, digital printing, failure rate

中图分类号: