{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019019751280175568, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006583760058522311, 'mean_word_length': 5.333333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Clinical evaluation of indirect post core by two different impression methods].

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical effect of indirect cast post core by two different impression methods between silicone rubber impression and agar/alginate combination impression.


METHODS
389 massive destruction teeth after root canal therapy were randomly divided into two groups (group A and group B). The teeth of group A was treated by silicone rubber impression material for making indirect post core impression. The teeth of group B was treated by agar/alginate combination impression for making indirect post core impression. The effect of two different impression methods was evaluated.


RESULTS
The success rate of making indirect post core impression by silicone rubber impression method was higher than that of making impression by agar/alginate combination impression method. Significant difference was found in making indirect post core impression between premolars and molars by two different impression methods (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in making indirect post core impression of anterior teeth by two different impression methods (P>0.05).


CONCLUSION
The clinical effect of making indirect post core impression by silicone rubber impression method is better than that of making impression by agar/alginate combination impression method.