喷砂与手器刮治清除龈下菌斑效果的比较

发布时间：2018-05-14 08:51

本文选题：喷砂 + 手器刮治　；参考：《上海交通大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的:通过喷砂及手器刮治清除龈下菌斑效果的临床随机对照研究,验证针对袋深3~6mm的龈下环境,龈下喷砂技术的治疗效果及其所能维持的时间,并探讨该技术与传统手器刮治结果是否有所差异,为今后维护期治疗龈下菌斑清除方法的选择及复诊间隔的确定提供实验数据及资料积累。材料和方法:对处于牙周维护治疗阶段的慢性牙周炎患者依据split-mouth及随机数表建立实验组与对照组,对其口内袋深3~6mm的4个牙位分组行喷砂及手器刮治清除龈下菌斑。在术前、术后第7天及术后第30天分别记录以下临床指标:菌斑指数(PI)、探诊深度(PD)、探诊出血(BOP)及牙龈退缩(GR)。同时计算治疗前后“牙周袋闭合”(PD不大于4mm且BOP阴性)的位点百分比,作为辅助观测指标。结果:研究纳入23名患者,在治疗过程中PI均值0.8。喷砂组与手器刮治组术后第7天PD均有显著下降(P0.0001)。喷砂组术后第7天BOP百分比(BOP%)与术前相比显著减少(P=0.0493),术后第30天则与术前无明显差异;手器刮治组尽管在术后第7、30天观察期内其BOP%呈下降趋势,但与术前相比无显著差异。喷砂组与手器刮治组“牙周袋闭合”位点百分比在术后第30天均有显著提高(分别为P=0.0430及P=0.0042)。研究过程中,无患者出现皮下气肿或其他不适主诉。结论:针对袋深3~6mm的龈下环境,甘氨酸龈下喷砂技术与传统手器刮治同样对维护期龈下菌斑控制有一定效果,但两种治疗方法间无明显差异。龈下喷砂治疗可作为维护期治疗的一种供选治疗手段,但术后1个月可能需要再次治疗对疗效进行巩固。
[Abstract]:Objective: to verify the efficacy of subgingival sandblasting and subgingival sandblasting in the subgingival environment of pouch depth 3~6mm and the duration of its maintenance through a randomized controlled clinical study on the effect of sand blasting and hand curettage on the removal of subgingival plaque. The difference between the technique and the traditional hand curettage was discussed, which provided experimental data and data accumulation for the selection of subgingival plaque removal method and the determination of the interval of rediagnosis in the future maintenance period. Materials and methods: the experimental group and control group were established according to split-mouth and random number table. The four teeth of 3~6mm were divided into two groups: sand blasting and hand curettage to remove subgingival plaque. The following clinical indexes were recorded before operation, 7 days after operation and 30 days after operation: plaque index (Pi), probing depth (PD), probing bleeding (BOP) and gingival retraction (GRG). At the same time, the percentage of "periodontal bag closure" PD was less than that of 4mm and BOP negative before and after treatment. Results: the average Pi of 23 patients was 0.8. PD decreased significantly in sand blasting group and hand curettage group on the 7th day after operation. The percentage of BOP in the sandblasting group decreased significantly on the 7th day after operation compared with that before operation, but on the 30th day after operation, there was no significant difference between the two groups, but there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of BOP% during the observation period of the 7th day after operation, but there was no significant difference between the hand curettage group and the preoperative group. The percentage of "periodontal bag closure" sites in sandblasting group and hand curettage group were significantly increased on the 30th day after operation (P _ (0.0430) and P ~ (0.0042) respectively. No subcutaneous emphysema or other complaints were reported during the study. Conclusion: for the subgingival environment of 3~6mm in pouch depth, glycine subgingival sandblasting and traditional hand curettage have some effect on the control of subgingival plaque during maintenance period, but there is no significant difference between the two treatment methods. Subgingival sandblasting can be used as an alternative treatment in maintenance period, but it may need to be retreated one month after operation to consolidate the curative effect.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R781.4

【相似文献】