КЛИНИЧЕСКАЯ ОЦЕНКА ПОЛНЫХ СЪЁМНЫХ ПРОТЕЗОВ, ИЗГОТОВЛЕННЫХ ПО УСОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАННОЙ ЦИФРОВОЙ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ С ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕМ ПЛАСТМАССЫ ГОРЯЧЕЙ ПОЛИМЕРИЗАЦИИ

Бехруз Рабиев

Mualliflar

Behruz Rabiyev Abu Ali ibn Sino nomidagi Buxoro davlat tibbiyot instituti Author

##semicolon##

to‘liq olinadigan protezlar

Abstrak

Annotatsiya. Ushbu tadqiqotning maqsadi issiqlikda polimerlanadigan plastmassa va «Kravets» vertikulyatori qo‘llanilgan takomillashtirilgan raqamli texnologiya asosida tayyorlangan to‘liq olinadigan tish protezlarining samaradorligini sovuqlikda polimerlanadigan plastmassa bilan an’anaviy usulda ishlab chiqarilgan protezlar bilan taqqoslab klinik baholashdan iborat bo‘ldi. Asosiy va nazorat klinik guruh bemorlariga CAD/CAM protokoli bo‘yicha Exocad dasturida virtual modellashtirish orqali raqamli protezlar tayyorlandi, so‘ngra yakuniy protezlar bilan prototiplar o‘rtasidagi o‘lcham aniqligi tahlil qilindi. Klinik tekshiruvlar chakka-pastki jag‘ bo‘g‘imi funksiyasi, chaynash mushaklari holati, protezlarning fiksatsiyasi va barqarorligi hamda protez gigiyenasini o‘z ichiga oldi. Og‘iz sog‘lig‘i bilan bog‘liq hayot sifati OHIP-14 so‘rovnomasi yordamida davolashdan oldin va protezlardan foydalanish davrida baholandi. 12 oylik kuzatuv davomida har ikki guruh bemorlarida og‘izni ochish amplitudasi me’yorda saqlanib, pastki jag‘ning deviasiya yoki defleksiyasi, shuningdek, chakka-pastki jag‘ bo‘g‘imi sohasida klinik o‘zgarishlar aniqlanmadi. Asosiy guruhda yakuniy protezlar va prototiplar o‘rtasidagi o‘rtacha okklyuzion farq juda kichik bo‘lib, yuqori jag‘ uchun taxminan 30±4 mkm va pastki jag‘ uchun 29±4 mkm ni tashkil etdi, nazorat guruhida esa bu ko‘rsatkich 230 mkm dan ortiq bo‘lib, ko‘proq noqulaylik shikoyatlari va protezlarni qayta bazalash zarurati bilan bog‘liq edi. Jeganathan indeksi bo‘yicha protez gigiyenasi bahosi nazorat guruhida qoldiq va yumshoq to‘qima usti yotqiziqlarining ko‘proq to‘planishini ko‘rsatdi. OHIP-14 umumiy ballari har ikki guruhda sezilarli darajada kamaydi, biroq klinik effekt asosiy guruhda yaqqolroq bo‘ldi (∆OHIP-14 = 3,74; nazorat guruhida 2,65). Olingan natijalar takomillashtirilgan raqamli texnologiya asosida tayyorlangan to‘liq olinadigan protezlarning yuqori klinik samaradorligini va ularning aniqlik, fiksatsiya, gigiyena hamda bemorlarning hayot sifati bo‘yicha ustunligini ko‘rsatadi.

##submission.citations##

1. Goodacre C.J., Garbacea A., Naylor W.P., Daher T., Marchack B.W. Clinical outcomes with digital complete dentures // Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. – 2016. – Vol. 115(6). – P. 704–711.

2. Infante L., Yilmaz B., McGlumphy E., Finger I. Fabricating complete dentures with CAD/CAM technology // Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. – 2018. – Vol. 119(6). – P. 826–832.

3. AlHelal A., AlRumaih H., Kattadiyil M. Clinical evaluation of CAD/CAM milled complete dentures // Journal of Dentistry. – 2016. – Vol. 53. – P. 29–36.

4. Kattadiyil M.T., Goodacre C.J. CAD/CAM complete dentures: a review of technique and patient outcomes // Journal of Prosthodontics. – 2019. – Vol. 28(2). – P. 161–167.

5. Kattadiyil M.T., AlHelal A. An update on digital complete dentures // Journal of Prosthodontics. – 2017. – Vol. 26(2). – P. 94–103.

6. Ishida Y., Muroi M., Murakami N. Accuracy and clinical fit of CAD/CAM dentures // Dental Materials Journal. – 2019. – Vol. 38(2). – P. 235–243.

7. Miyazaki T., Hotta Y. CAD/CAM systems available for dentistry // International Journal of Computerized Dentistry. – 2017. – Vol. 20(1). – P. 31–46.

8. Bidra A.S., Taylor T.D., Agar J.R. Computer-aided technology for complete dentures: systematic review // Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. – 2019. – Vol. 121(4). – P. 637–643.

9. Garrett N.R., Shen C. Clinical performance of monolithic digital complete dentures // Journal of Prosthodontics. – 2020. – Vol. 29(7). – P. 611–617.

10. Taubmann A., Krebber M., Kordass B. Digital vs conventional dentures: randomized controlled trial // Clinical Oral Investigations. – 2022. – Vol. 26(3). – P. 2439–2448.

11. Amin F., Abdelnabi M., Aly N. Effect of polymerization method on denture base accuracy // Journal of Prosthodontics. – 2020. – Vol. 29(1). – P. 71–78.

12. Ayman A., El-Deeb H. Dimensional stability of denture base resins // Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. – 2019. – Vol. 11(3). – P. 145–152.

13. Liu Y., Liang X., Xu L. Thermal deformation of PMMA denture bases // Dental Materials. – 2021. – Vol. 37(5). – P. 855–863.

14. Abdulrazzaq A., Bencharit S. Fit accuracy of heat-polymerized vs autopolymerized PMMA bases // Journal of Dental Materials. – 2017. – Vol. 33(3). – P. 302–309.

15. Shams A., Abdelnabi M. Comparison of CAD/CAM PMMA and conventional PMMA bases // Clinical and Experimental Dental Research. – 2022. – Vol. 8(1). – P. 112–119.

16. Negreiros W.A., Consani R.L. Dimensional stability of acrylic resins after processing // Journal of Applied Oral Science. – 2020. – Vol. 28. – Article e20190407.

17. Al-Dwairi Z.N., Tahboub K.Y. Polymerization method and denture base fit // Journal of Prosthodontic Research. – 2021. – Vol. 65(3). – P. 314–321.

18. Jeganathan S., Lin C. Denture plaque and hygiene index: review and update // Gerodontology. – 2019. – Vol. 36(2). – P. 89–98.

19. Coco B., Bagg J., Cross J. Microbial biofilm formation on denture acrylic surfaces // Journal of Dentistry. – 2020. – Vol. 96. – Article 103329.

20. Cruz P.C., Andrade I., de Souza R. Biofilm formation on acrylic dentures: clinical evaluation // Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. – 2018. – Vol. 120(1). – P. 55–63.

21. Kang S.H., Kim H.E., Lee K.S. Factors associated with denture plaque levels in elderly // Gerodontology. – 2019. – Vol. 36(3). – P. 242–250.

22. Pinto L.R., Machado A.L., Vergani C.E. Surface roughness and biofilm adhesion // Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. – 2021. – Vol. 32(5). – P. 1–9.

23. Gendreau L., Loewy Z. Microbial colonization and denture stomatitis // Journal of Prosthodontics. – 2017. – Vol. 26(2). – P. 113–120.

24. Dhir S., Kumar M. Denture hygiene practices among edentulous patients // Gerodontology. – 2020. – Vol. 37(4). – P. 345–352.

25. Slade G.D. Oral Health Impact Profile: update on validation and use // Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. – 2018. – Vol. 46(1). – P. 90–98.

26. Montero J., Castillo J.L., Albaladejo A. OHIP-14 in edentulous patients: assessment of prosthetic rehabilitation // Journal of Dentistry. – 2016. – Vol. 54. – P. 48–55.

27. Rocha E.P., Henriques C., Barros V. OHIP-14 outcome after denture treatment // Gerodontology. – 2020. – Vol. 37(1). – P. 30–38.

28. Suryakumari G., Reddy P. Impact of conventional vs digital dentures on quality of life // Journal of Prosthodontics. – 2019. – Vol. 28(6). – P. 712–719.

29. Durga K., Kumar V. Quality of life after complete denture therapy // Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health. – 2021. – Vol. 9. – P. 198–203.

30. Sampaio M., Oliveira R., Leles C. Quality-of-life outcomes in prosthetic rehabilitation // International Journal of Prosthodontics. – 2020. – Vol. 33(5). – P. 527–534.

31. Okeson J.P. Management of Temporomandibular Disorders. – St. Louis: Elsevier, 2019. – 528 p.

32. Manfredini D., Guarda-Nardini L., Winocur E. Epidemiology of TMDs // Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. – 2018. – Vol. 45(4). – P. 333–339.

33. Ergun G., Tuncer S. TMJ function in complete denture wearers // Journal of Prosthodontics. – 2021. – Vol. 30(5). – P. 395–402.

34. Herpich C.M., Vieira A.R., Custodio W. Mandibular movement patterns in denture patients // Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. – 2018. – Vol. 119(5). – P. 676–684.

35. Lemos C.A.A., de Souza Batista V.E. TMJ evaluation in edentulous patients // Clinical Oral Investigations. – 2020. – Vol. 24(6). – P. 2123–2131.