摘要目的 追踪观察金沉积基底冠熔结镍铬桥体烤瓷桥、金合金烤瓷桥和镍铬合金烤瓷桥的临床效果,为评价不同烤瓷桥临床修复的远期效果提供参考.方法 制作金沉积基底冠熔结镍铬桥体烤瓷桥(A组)35件,同期分别制作金合金烤瓷桥(B组)和镍铬合金烤瓷桥(c组)各35件,临床检查105件修复体的边缘密合性,随访复查修复体的基牙继发龋和修复体折裂、折断、脱落情况.结果 105件修复体平均随访6年.A组边缘密合性好(100%),明显好于B组(91%)与C组(77%)(P<0.01).6年内A组基牙继发龋率为0%(0/35),B组基牙继发龋率为6%(2/35),c组基牙继发龋率为14%(5/35).A组中有1例在修复2年后饰面瓷崩瓷,占3%;随访期内B组无崩瓷现象;C组1例在修复4年后饰面瓷崩瓷,占3%,3种修复体崩瓷率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).其余修复体均无桥架松动、折断以及修复体脱落.结论 金沉积基底冠熔结镍铬桥体烤瓷桥有良好的边缘密合度,强度可满足临床要求,有临床应用价值.但其与常规铸造合金烤瓷桥一样,需谨慎使用,提倡用于无髓基牙烤瓷桥修复.

abstractsObjective To evaluate and compare effects of compound galvano-ceramic bridges with Ni-Cr alloy ceramic bridges and gold alloy ceramic bridges in clinic.Methods A total of 105 bridges were made for 103 patients.Of them,35 were compound galvano-ceramic bridges,35 Ni-Cr alloy ceramic bridges,and 35 gold alloy ceramic bridges respectively.The marginal fitness and fracture of ceramic bridges were checked and caries or second caries of all abutments were also examined in clinic at 6 years after cementation.Results The marginal fitness of compound galvano-ceramic bridges was evaluated as good in 100% of the bridges,which was better than the fitness of gold alloy ceramic bridges(91%) and Ni-Cr alloy ceramic bridges(77%)(P<0.01).There was no difference in fracture of ceramic layer among compound galvano-ceramic,gold alloy ceramic,and Ni-Cr alloy ceramic bridges at 6 years(P>0.05).None of compound galvano-ceramic bridge was found out caries or second caries of abutments.Two of 35(6%) gold alloy ceramic bridges was found out second caries of abutments and five of 35(14%) Ni-Cr alloy ceramic bridges were found out caries or second caries of abutments at 6 years.None of frameworks of all bridges was loose or broken.Conclusions The 6-year clinical study on compound galvano-ceramic bridges presents good results in marginal fitness and fracture resistance,which indicates the compound galvano-ceramic bridge can be used in clinic.