Impact of Magnifying Loupes on the Finish Lines of Fixed Prosthesis Preparations

IF 2.9
Catarina Nóbrega, M. Manso, M. Herrero-Climent, Javier Gil, Paulo Ribeiro
{"title":"Impact of Magnifying Loupes on the Finish Lines of Fixed Prosthesis Preparations","authors":"Catarina Nóbrega, M. Manso, M. Herrero-Climent, Javier Gil, Paulo Ribeiro","doi":"10.3390/prosthesis6030044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The use of magnification appears to offer advantages in dental preparation for fixed prosthetics and is widely employed in clinical practice, although it has not yet been thoroughly documented. Therefore, the primary objective is to determine the impact of magnification on the quality of finish lines during the performance of preparations for fixed prostheses. Methods: Sixty-four natural teeth were randomized into two groups: Group O (preparation without additional magnification) and Group L (preparation with Kitus® 2.5× magnifying glasses). The teeth were prepared for full crowns, and the finish lines were evaluated under the OPMI® PicoZeiss dental microscope at 10× magnification, based on the criteria of Continuity, Roughness, and Thickness. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the parameters evaluated. In Thickness, Group O had a median (IQR) of 600 µm (500; 800 µm) and Group L, 600 µm (400; 800 µm). Group L was Continuous in 64.8% of the cases, Slightly Continuous in 26.1% of the evaluations, and Not Continuous in 9.1% of the cases, thus having a slight advantage over Group O, whose values were 58.0%, 35.2%, and 6.8%, respectively. Group L was Polished in 71.0% of the cases and Rough in 29.0% of the evaluations, against 69.3% and 30.7% of Group O, respectively. These results were obtained using IBM SPSS ® software, version 29.0. Conclusions: The 2.5× magnification magnifiers demonstrated a slight positive impact on improving the quality of dental preparations for fixed prostheses. Nevertheless, since the results are not statistically significant, it is difficult to extrapolate them to the broader population.","PeriodicalId":474580,"journal":{"name":"Prosthesis","volume":" 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prosthesis","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis6030044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of magnification appears to offer advantages in dental preparation for fixed prosthetics and is widely employed in clinical practice, although it has not yet been thoroughly documented. Therefore, the primary objective is to determine the impact of magnification on the quality of finish lines during the performance of preparations for fixed prostheses. Methods: Sixty-four natural teeth were randomized into two groups: Group O (preparation without additional magnification) and Group L (preparation with Kitus® 2.5× magnifying glasses). The teeth were prepared for full crowns, and the finish lines were evaluated under the OPMI® PicoZeiss dental microscope at 10× magnification, based on the criteria of Continuity, Roughness, and Thickness. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the parameters evaluated. In Thickness, Group O had a median (IQR) of 600 µm (500; 800 µm) and Group L, 600 µm (400; 800 µm). Group L was Continuous in 64.8% of the cases, Slightly Continuous in 26.1% of the evaluations, and Not Continuous in 9.1% of the cases, thus having a slight advantage over Group O, whose values were 58.0%, 35.2%, and 6.8%, respectively. Group L was Polished in 71.0% of the cases and Rough in 29.0% of the evaluations, against 69.3% and 30.7% of Group O, respectively. These results were obtained using IBM SPSS ® software, version 29.0. Conclusions: The 2.5× magnification magnifiers demonstrated a slight positive impact on improving the quality of dental preparations for fixed prostheses. Nevertheless, since the results are not statistically significant, it is difficult to extrapolate them to the broader population.
放大镜对固定义齿制备终点的影响
背景:在固定义齿的牙科制备过程中,使用放大镜似乎具有一定的优势,并且在临床实践中被广泛使用,但尚未有详尽的记录。因此,研究的主要目的是确定放大镜对固定义齿预备过程中完成线质量的影响。方法:将 64 颗天然牙齿随机分为两组:O组(不使用额外的放大镜进行预备)和L组(使用Kitus® 2.5倍放大镜进行预备)。在 OPMI® PicoZeiss 牙科显微镜 10 倍放大镜下,根据连续性、粗糙度和厚度标准,对牙齿进行全冠预备,并对完成线进行评估。结果:各组在所有评估参数上均无显着差异。在厚度方面,O 组的中位数(IQR)为 600 微米(500;800 微米),L 组为 600 微米(400;800 微米)。L 组有 64.8% 的病例是连续的,26.1% 的病例是轻微连续的,9.1% 的病例是不连续的,因此比 O 组略胜一筹,O 组的数值分别为 58.0%、35.2% 和 6.8%。L 组在 71.0% 的评估中为抛光,在 29.0% 的评估中为粗糙,而 O 组分别为 69.3% 和 30.7%。这些结果是使用 IBM SPSS ® 软件 29.0 版得出的。结论2.5 倍放大镜对提高固定义齿的牙体预备质量有轻微的积极影响。然而,由于结果不具有统计学意义,因此很难将其推广到更广泛的人群中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书