Journals / Van Tıp Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of Procedural Pain Levels In CAD/CAM Crown Patients Produced By Different Retraction Methods

Farklı Retraksiyon Yöntemleri Kullanılarak Üretilen CAD/CAM Kuron Hastalarında Prosedürel Ağrı Düzeylerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Pages
313–318
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It can be commented that Er, Cr: YSGG laser can be a good alternative because of low pain levels in the throughing technique.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this clinical study is to evaluate the pain levels of single crown patients who were produced with CAD/CAM (computer aided design and computer aided production) technique using 3 different retraction systems at the time of the procedure, at the 1st day and at the 1st week.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: 60 mandibular molar teeth in 60 patients with crown indication were included in our study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It can be commented that Er, Cr: YSGG laser can be a good alternative because of low pain levels in the throughing technique.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this clinical study is to evaluate the pain levels of single crown patients who were produced with CAD/CAM (computer aided design and computer aided production) technique using 3 different retraction systems at the time of the procedure, at the 1st day and at the 1st week. Material and Method: 60 mandibular molar teeth in 60 patients with crown indication were included in our study. The preparation of the teeth was designed by a single clinician at the subgingival level and the chamfer end line and the patients were divided into 3 according to the retraction technique used: mechano-chemical method, chemical method and surgical method. Crowns are digitally designed and manufactured with CAD/CAM. During the procedure, patients were asked to score their pain levels on the 1st day and 1st week after the procedure with VAS. The data were analyzed with SPSS program and Friedman test was used to compare the temporal changes of intra-group VAS values. Results: The pain score median values during the procedure differ according to the groups. During the procedure, while the highest pain score was in the mechano-chemical method, the lowest pain scores were determined in the chemical method. In the first week, VAS scores were 0 in both surgical and chemical methods. Conclusion: The lowest procedural pain level in gingival retraction was determined in the chemical method group. It can be commented that Er, Cr: YSGG laser can be a good alternative because of low pain levels in the throughing technique.

Özet

Amaç: Bu klinik çalışmanın amacı 3 farklı retraksiyon sistemi kullanılarak CAD/CAM (bilgisayar destekli tasarım ve bilgisayar destekli üretim) tekniği ile üretilen tek kuron hastalarının işlem anındaki, 1. gündeki ve 1. haftadaki ağrı seviyelerinin değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmamıza kuron endikasyonu konulan 60 hastadaki 60 mandibular molar diş dahil edilmiştir. Dişlerin preparasyonu tek bir klinisyen tarafından subgingival seviyede ve chamfer bitim çizgisinde dizayn edilmiş ve hastalar kullanılan retraksiyon tekniğine göre 3’e ayrılmıştır: mekanokimyasal yöntem, kimyasal yöntem ve cerrahi yöntem. Kuronlar CAD/CAM ile dijital olarak dizayn edilip üretilmiştir. Hastalardan prosedür sırasında, prosedür sonrası 1. gün ve 1. haftada hissetikleri ağrı seviyelerini VAS ile skorlamaları istenmiştir. Veriler SPSS programı ile analiz edilmiş ve grup içi VAS değerlerinin zamansal değişimlerinin karşılaştırılmasında Friedman testi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Prosedür esnasındaki ağrı skor medyan değerleri gruplara göre farklılık göstermektedir. Prosedür esnasında en yüksek ağrı skoru mekano-kimyasal yöntemde iken, en düşük ağrı skorları kimyasal yöntemde tespit edilmiştir. 1. haftada ise hem cerrahi hem de kimyasal yöntemde VAS skorları 0 dır. Sonuç: Gingival retraksiyonda en düşük prosedürel ağrı düzeyi kimyasal yöntem grubunda tespit edilmiştir. Cerrahi yöntem olan Er,Cr:YSGG lazer ile throughing tekniğinde düşük ağrı seviyeleri gözlemlenmiş olması nedeniyle iyi bir alternatif olabileceği yorumunda bulunulabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEĞİRMENCİ, B. Ü. (2020). Evaluation of Procedural Pain Levels In CAD/CAM Crown Patients Produced By Different Retraction Methods. Van Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 3, 313–318. https://ajindex.com/articles/333851

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Goutham GB, Jayanti I, Jalaluddin M, Avijeeta A, Ramanna PK, Joy J. Clinical Assessment of Gingival Sulcus Width using Various Gingival Displacement Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19(5): 502-506
  2. Chaudhari J, Prajapati P, Patel J, Sethuraman R, Naveen YG. Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study. Contemp Clin Dent 2015; 6(2): 189- 195
  3. La Forgia A. Tissue retraction for fixed prosthesis. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1961; 11(3): 480-486
  4. Nemetz H, Donovan T, Landesman H. Exposing the gingival margin: A systematic approach for the control of hemorrhage. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1984; 51(5): 647-651
  5. Thomas MS, Joseph RM, Parolia A. Nonsurgical gingival displacement in restorative dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2011; 32(5): 26-38
  6. Wassell RW, Barker D, Walls AWG. Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: impression materials and technique. Br Dent J 2002; 192(12): 679-690
  7. Donovan TE, Chee WWL. Current concepts in gingival displacement. Dent Clin North Am 2004; 48(2): vi-444
  8. Melilli D, Mauceri R, Albanese A, Matranga D, Pizzo G. Gingival displacement using diode laser or retraction cords: A comparative clinical study. Am J Dent 2018; 31(3): 131-134
  9. Acar Ö, Erkut S, Özçelik TB, Ozdemır E, Akçil M. A clinical comparison of cordless and conventional displacement systems regarding clinical performance and impression quality. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2014; 111(5): 388- 394
  10. Huang C, Somar M, Li K, Mohadeb JVN. Efficiency of Cordless Versus Cord Techniques of Gingival Retraction: A Systematic Review. J Prosthodont 2017; 26(3): 177-185
  11. Weir DJ, Williams BH. Clinical effectiveness of mechanical-chemical tissue displacement methods. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 1984; 51(3): 326-329
  12. Bressan E, Paniz G, Gobbato L, Franco A, Lops D. Efficacy of an anesthetic gel in the reduction of pain during impression making. Oper Dent 2014; 39(4): 361-366
  13. Chandra S, Singh A, Gupta KK, Chandra C, Arora V. Effect of gingival displacement cord and cordless systems on the closure, displacement, and inflammation of the gingival crevice. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2016; 115(2): 177- 182
  14. Kesari ZI, Karani JT, Mistry SS, Pai AR. A comparative evaluation of amount of gingival displacement produced by four different gingival displacement agents - An in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc