不同超声器械进行龈下刮治对牙根面影响的实验研究
发布时间：2018-11-28 17:00
【摘要】：目的：随着超声技术的进步和发展，临床上出现了多种超声龈下刮治器，既能更高效地去除菌斑牙石，又能减轻患者不适感。本研究通过磁致伸缩式超声刮治器、压电陶瓷式超声刮治器和Vector超声系统分别对有牙石覆盖的牙根面进行处理，记录刮治时间，结合扫描电镜观察刮治后牙根表面情况，评估3种不同超声器械进行龈下刮治的效能以及对牙根面的影响，为临床上龈下刮治超声器械的选择提供参考。 研究方法：收集因严重牙周病拔除并已完成超声龈上洁治术后的离体患牙34颗，对其近远中根面牙石进行评估记录并分级，按照设定标准选择48个龈下根面，随机分为4组：奥丹超声治疗仪组（A组），EMS超声治疗仪组（B组），Vector超声系统组（C组）和手工对照组（D组），标记根中部5mm×4mm范围进行龈下刮治，直至肉眼见无牙石，探针检查根面光滑、坚硬为止。记录每个根面的刮治时间。在体视显微镜和扫描电镜下观察刮治后牙根面的情况，拍摄图像。每组随机选取2个根面扫描电镜观察牙根面情况，并将刮治区域平均分为9等份，选取每等份的中心点在200倍镜下拍摄图像，根据对根面粗糙度程度分级记分，进行比较研究。各组龈下刮治所消耗的时间采用完全随机设计方差分析，各组粗糙程度比较采用完全随机设计多样本比较的秩和检验进行分析。 结果：1.刮治时间比较：在清除实验区域牙石的用时方面，Vector超声系统组的用时最长（164.75±24.19）秒，显著长于奥丹超声治疗仪组（42.17±5.18）秒的用时，也长于EMS超声治疗仪组的用时（55.92±7.56）秒和手工器械对照组的用时（68.50±12.26）秒。完全随机设计方差分析显示，组间用时差异有统计学意义（F=196.439，P＜0.001），组间两两比较示各组间差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。 2.根面粗糙度比较：经完全随机设计秩和检验，4种不同器械处理过的根面粗糙度差异有统计学意义（H=49.908，P＜0.001）。通过调整检验水准法进行组间两两比较示：奥丹超声治疗仪组与EMS超声治疗仪组处理后根面粗糙度差异无统计学意义（Z=㧟0.143，P＞0.05），奥丹超声治疗仪组与Vector超声系统组处理后根面粗糙度差异有统计学意义（Z=㧟4.640，P＜0.001），，EMS超声治疗仪组与Vector超声系统组处理后根面粗糙度差异有统计学意义（Z=㧟4.646，P＜0.001），Vector超声系统组与手工对照组处理后根面粗糙度差异有统计学意义（Z=㧟2.389，P＜0.05）。 3.扫描电镜观察：100倍镜下观察奥丹超声治疗仪组可见牙根面凹凸不平，部分位点可见玷污层残留，牙根面可见明显的划痕，少量牙骨质呈片状剥脱。EMS超声治疗仪组镜下可见牙根面不光滑，见不规则玷污层残留，牙根面部分位点可见少量划痕，无明显牙骨质剥脱或凿孔。Vector超声系统组处理后牙根面最光滑，可见少量玷污层，牙根面形态结果较清晰，未见明显划痕，部分位点可见牙骨质结构。手工对照组镜下见牙根面光滑，见形状不规则玷污层残留，难以区分牙骨质和牙本质结果，无明显牙骨质剥脱。 结论：1.奥丹超声器械进行龈下刮治的时间短于EMS压电陶瓷式超声器械、Vector超声系统和传统手工器械，而Vector超声系统的用时最长，提示奥丹超声器械龈下刮治的效率最高，Vector超声系统进行龈下刮治效率较低。 2.奥丹超声器械龈下刮治后的牙根面粗糙不平，划痕明显，对根面组织的损伤最重，EMS超声器械稍优于奥丹超声器械，Vector超声系统处理后的牙根面光滑平整，无划痕，是4组器械中对牙根面损伤最小的刮治器械。
[Abstract]:Objective: With the progress and development of the ultrasonic technology, a variety of ultrasonic subgingival curettage devices have been developed in clinic, which can remove the dental plaque more efficiently and alleviate the discomfort of the patients. According to the research, the root surface covered by the tartar is treated by a magnetic-induced telescopic ultrasonic wave-scraping device, a piezoelectric ceramic-type ultrasonic wave-scraping device and a Vector ultrasonic system, the scraping time is recorded, and the surface of the root of the root of the root is observed by the scanning electron microscope. The effects of three different ultrasonic devices on the subgingival curettage and the effect on the root surface were evaluated. Methods: 34 teeth were collected for the removal of serious periodontal disease and the ultrasonic subgingival cleaning was completed, and the root surface was evaluated and recorded, and 48 subgingival root surfaces were randomly divided into 4 groups according to the set standard.), the EMS ultrasonic therapeutic equipment group (group B), the Vector ultrasound system group (group C) and the manual control group (group D), the subgingival curettage is carried out in the range of 5mm to 4mm in the middle part of the marker root, Stop. Record the curettage of each root surface and observing the condition of the root surface after the scraping and treatment under the stereomicroscope and the scanning electron microscope, The method comprises the following steps: each group randomly selects two root surface scanning electron microscope to observe the root surface condition, and the scraping region is divided into 9 parts on average, the center point of each part is selected to shoot an image under a 200-fold mirror, and the comparison and research are carried out according to the grading score of the roughness degree of the root surface. The time consumed by the subgingival curettage of each group was studied by a complete random design variance analysis, and the degree of roughness of each group was compared with the rank and the test of the complete random design. in the form of a knot Results: 1. The time of scraping and treatment: The longest (164. 75, 24. 19) seconds in the use of the Vector ultrasound system group in the removal of the dental calculus in the experimental area was significantly longer than that in the treatment group of the Odan (4.17, 5.18) seconds. At the time of use, it was also longer than the use of the EMS ultrasound treatment group (52.92 to 7.56) seconds and when the manual device control group was used (60.50) 12. 2 The analysis of variance showed that the difference between the groups was statistically significant (F = 196.439, P <0.001), and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (P <0. 05). 2. Comparison of root surface roughness: the difference of root surface roughness treated by four different devices is of statistical significance through complete random design rank and test (H = 49. 908, P <0. 001) The difference of the roughness of the root surface after treatment with the group of the Odan ultrasonic treatment instrument and the EMS ultrasonic treatment instrument group was not statistically significant (Z =-0.143, P> The difference of the roughness of the root surface after treatment with the Vector ultrasound system was of statistical significance (Z =-4.640, P <0.001), and the difference of the roughness of the root surface after treatment with the Vector ultrasound system was statistically significant (Z =-4.646, P <0).. 001) The difference of root surface roughness after treatment with the Vector ultrasound system and the manual control group was of statistical significance (Z =? 2.389, P <0. 05). 3. The scanning electron microscope observation: under the 100-fold observation, the surface of the root surface of the Odan ultrasonic therapeutic equipment group is observed to be uneven, the part of the site can be seen to have a stain layer residue, the root surface can be obviously scratched, and a small amount of teeth The quality of the bone is in the form of sheet-like exfoliation. The surface of the root of the root is not smooth under the lens of the EMS ultrasonic therapeutic equipment. See the residue of the irregular stained layer. The site of the root surface can be found with a small amount of scratch and no obvious teeth. The root surface is the most smooth after treatment with the Vector ultrasound system group, and a small amount of defiled layer is visible. The morphological results of the root surface are clear, and no obvious scratch or partial site is found. It can be seen that the root surface is smooth under the manual control group, and it is difficult to distinguish the results of the cementum and dentine, and it is difficult to distinguish the results of the cementum and dentine. obvious cementum Conclusion: 1. The time of subgingival curettage of the 1. Odin ultrasound device is shorter than that of the EMS piezoelectric ceramic ultrasonic device, the Vector ultrasonic system and the traditional hand-operated device, and the longest time of the use of the Vector ultrasound system, the efficiency of the subgingival curettage of the Odan ultrasonic device is the highest, and the Vector ultrasound system is advanced. The treatment efficiency of the subgingival curettage is low. The root surface after the subgingival curettage of the ultrasound device of the Odan ultrasonic device is rough, the scratch is obvious, the damage to the tissue of the root surface is the most, the EMS ultrasonic device is slightly superior to that of the Odan ultrasonic device and the Vector ultrasonic system, The root surface is smooth and flat and has no scratch. It is the right tooth in the 4 sets of devices.
【学位授予单位】：广西医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R781.4
本文编号：2363614
[Abstract]:Objective: With the progress and development of the ultrasonic technology, a variety of ultrasonic subgingival curettage devices have been developed in clinic, which can remove the dental plaque more efficiently and alleviate the discomfort of the patients. According to the research, the root surface covered by the tartar is treated by a magnetic-induced telescopic ultrasonic wave-scraping device, a piezoelectric ceramic-type ultrasonic wave-scraping device and a Vector ultrasonic system, the scraping time is recorded, and the surface of the root of the root of the root is observed by the scanning electron microscope. The effects of three different ultrasonic devices on the subgingival curettage and the effect on the root surface were evaluated. Methods: 34 teeth were collected for the removal of serious periodontal disease and the ultrasonic subgingival cleaning was completed, and the root surface was evaluated and recorded, and 48 subgingival root surfaces were randomly divided into 4 groups according to the set standard.), the EMS ultrasonic therapeutic equipment group (group B), the Vector ultrasound system group (group C) and the manual control group (group D), the subgingival curettage is carried out in the range of 5mm to 4mm in the middle part of the marker root, Stop. Record the curettage of each root surface and observing the condition of the root surface after the scraping and treatment under the stereomicroscope and the scanning electron microscope, The method comprises the following steps: each group randomly selects two root surface scanning electron microscope to observe the root surface condition, and the scraping region is divided into 9 parts on average, the center point of each part is selected to shoot an image under a 200-fold mirror, and the comparison and research are carried out according to the grading score of the roughness degree of the root surface. The time consumed by the subgingival curettage of each group was studied by a complete random design variance analysis, and the degree of roughness of each group was compared with the rank and the test of the complete random design. in the form of a knot Results: 1. The time of scraping and treatment: The longest (164. 75, 24. 19) seconds in the use of the Vector ultrasound system group in the removal of the dental calculus in the experimental area was significantly longer than that in the treatment group of the Odan (4.17, 5.18) seconds. At the time of use, it was also longer than the use of the EMS ultrasound treatment group (52.92 to 7.56) seconds and when the manual device control group was used (60.50) 12. 2 The analysis of variance showed that the difference between the groups was statistically significant (F = 196.439, P <0.001), and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (P <0. 05). 2. Comparison of root surface roughness: the difference of root surface roughness treated by four different devices is of statistical significance through complete random design rank and test (H = 49. 908, P <0. 001) The difference of the roughness of the root surface after treatment with the group of the Odan ultrasonic treatment instrument and the EMS ultrasonic treatment instrument group was not statistically significant (Z =-0.143, P> The difference of the roughness of the root surface after treatment with the Vector ultrasound system was of statistical significance (Z =-4.640, P <0.001), and the difference of the roughness of the root surface after treatment with the Vector ultrasound system was statistically significant (Z =-4.646, P <0).. 001) The difference of root surface roughness after treatment with the Vector ultrasound system and the manual control group was of statistical significance (Z =? 2.389, P <0. 05). 3. The scanning electron microscope observation: under the 100-fold observation, the surface of the root surface of the Odan ultrasonic therapeutic equipment group is observed to be uneven, the part of the site can be seen to have a stain layer residue, the root surface can be obviously scratched, and a small amount of teeth The quality of the bone is in the form of sheet-like exfoliation. The surface of the root of the root is not smooth under the lens of the EMS ultrasonic therapeutic equipment. See the residue of the irregular stained layer. The site of the root surface can be found with a small amount of scratch and no obvious teeth. The root surface is the most smooth after treatment with the Vector ultrasound system group, and a small amount of defiled layer is visible. The morphological results of the root surface are clear, and no obvious scratch or partial site is found. It can be seen that the root surface is smooth under the manual control group, and it is difficult to distinguish the results of the cementum and dentine, and it is difficult to distinguish the results of the cementum and dentine. obvious cementum Conclusion: 1. The time of subgingival curettage of the 1. Odin ultrasound device is shorter than that of the EMS piezoelectric ceramic ultrasonic device, the Vector ultrasonic system and the traditional hand-operated device, and the longest time of the use of the Vector ultrasound system, the efficiency of the subgingival curettage of the Odan ultrasonic device is the highest, and the Vector ultrasound system is advanced. The treatment efficiency of the subgingival curettage is low. The root surface after the subgingival curettage of the ultrasound device of the Odan ultrasonic device is rough, the scratch is obvious, the damage to the tissue of the root surface is the most, the EMS ultrasonic device is slightly superior to that of the Odan ultrasonic device and the Vector ultrasonic system, The root surface is smooth and flat and has no scratch. It is the right tooth in the 4 sets of devices.
【学位授予单位】：广西医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R781.4
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前9条
1 宁杨;付云;周玉竹;;Vector和P5治疗仪行龈下刮治术对疗效及牙科畏惧水平的影响[J];广东牙病防治;2009年03期
2 筒永平;;慢性牙周炎超声龈下洁治和手工龈下刮治的疗效比较[J];中国临床医学;2010年04期
3 束蓉;宋忠臣;葛琳华;顾晶晶;程岚;谢玉峰;李超伦;刘晓峰;刘大力;;基础治疗对慢性牙周炎临床疗效和龈下牙周致病菌的影响[J];上海口腔医学;2010年03期
4 谷文惠,杨冬茹,董福生,贾欣欣,赵洁,李淑娟;超声龈下刮治对根面影响的扫描电镜研究[J];现代口腔医学杂志;2004年03期
5 周爽英;曹婕;孟焕新;;Vector超声系统对牙周炎维护期患者的疗效观察和疼痛感受评价[J];现代口腔医学杂志;2010年02期
6 葛少华,杨丕山,赵宁,戚向敏,孙钦峰;牙周非手术治疗对牙髓和根面牙本质敏感的影响[J];牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志;2004年04期
7 陈美华;尹元正;;龈下超声器械的现状和进展[J];牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志;2007年10期
8 丁一,胡琳,刘国良;超声和手用器械龈下洁治后牙根面的扫描电镜观察[J];牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志;1997年01期
9 徐莉,曹采方,应平,李玉敏;多根牙龈下超声刮治及手工刮治疗效观察[J];中华口腔医学杂志;1997年06期
本文编号：2363614
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/yixuelunwen/kouq/2363614.html
最近更新
教材专著
