上海口腔医学 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (3): 312-318.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2026.03.015

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

树脂基质复合陶瓷嵌体修复后牙牙体缺损的临床效果评价

徐舟1, 刘恺威2, 龙巧1, 陆卫青1, 曹捷1, 曹伟玉3   

  1. 1.上海市普陀区眼病牙病防治所,上海 200060;
    2.上海市长宁区妇幼保健院,上海 200050;
    3.上海市普陀区真如街道社区卫生服务中心,上海 200063
  • 收稿日期:2025-03-03 修回日期:2025-05-22 发布日期:2026-07-02
  • 通讯作者: 曹伟玉,E-mail:cweiyu0316@126.com
  • 作者简介:徐舟(1990—),女,硕士,主治医师,E-mail:1249308781@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    上海市普陀区卫生健康系统科技创新项目计划(ptkwws202316)

A study on the clinical effects of resin hybrid ceramic inlays in restoring posterior tooth defects

Xu Zhou1, Liu Kaiwei2, Long Qiao1, Lu Weiqing1, Cao Jie1, Cao Weiyu3   

  1. 1. Shanghai Putuo District Eye & Tooth Disease Control and Prevention Hospital. Shanghai 200060;
    2. Shanghai Changning Maternity & Infant Health Hospital. Shanghai 200050;
    3. Shanghai Zhenru Community Health Service Center. Shanghai 200063, China
  • Received:2025-03-03 Revised:2025-05-22 Published:2026-07-02

摘要: 目的: 比较玻璃陶瓷和树脂基质复合陶瓷用于嵌体修复的临床效果,为嵌体修复材料的选择提供参考。方法: 选取2023年1月—2023年2月在普陀区眼病牙病防治所口腔修复科就诊的后牙牙体缺损并行嵌体修复的患者40例,将患者随机分为两组,根据材料不同分为对照组(玻璃陶瓷,e.max陶瓷)和试验组(树脂基质复合陶瓷,Enamic)。修复后6、12、24个月复诊,参照改良美国公共卫生署评价标准,口内检查评价修复效果。制取石膏模型,扫描电镜下观察修复体表面情况。结果: Enamic组所有指标均为A级的修复体19例,成功率95%;e.max组所有指标均为A级的修复体15例,成功率75%。两组嵌体成功率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论: 树脂基质复合陶瓷2年后的临床修复效果优异,是制作嵌体的不错选择。Enamic和e.max两种材料的长期临床效果,仍需进一步验证。

关键词: 树脂基质复合陶瓷, 玻璃陶瓷, 嵌体, 牙体缺损

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare and evaluate the clinical effects of glass ceramics and resin hybrid ceramics for inlay restorations, thereby providing guidance for the selection of inlay restoration materials. METHODS: Forty patients with posterior tooth defects who underwent inlay restoration at the Department of Prosthodontics, Putuo District Eye & Tooth Disease Control and Prevention Hospital from January 2023 to February 2023 were selected and randomly divided into two groups, which were further categorized based on the material used: lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (e.max ceramic) in the control group, while resin-matrix composite ceramic (Enamic) in the experimental group. Follow-up visits were conducted at 6, 12 and 24 months post-restoration. The restoration effects were evaluated through intraoral examinations according to the modified United States Public Health Service(USPHS) criteria, and plaster models were made to observe the surface conditions of the restorations under scanning electron microscope (SEM). RESULTS: In the Enamic group, 19 restorations achieved grade A in all indices, with a success rate of 95%; while in the e.max group, 15 restorations achieved grade A in all indices, with a success rate of 75%. There was no significant difference in the success rates between the two groups of inlays (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The resin hybrid ceramic demonstrates excellent clinical restoration outcomes after two years, making it a favorable choice for inlay. However, further validation is still needed to compare the long-term clinical performance between VITA Enamic and IPS e.max.

Key words: Resin hybrid ceramics, Glass ceramics, Inlay, Teeth defect

中图分类号: