比较全身和局部盐酸米诺环素对慢性牙周炎的临床治疗作用  

A comparative study of systemic and topical treatment of minocycline in clinic periodontitis

作　　者：徐燕[1] 魏伟[2] 陈芳[1] 林潇[3] 

机构地区：[1]安徽医科大学口腔医学院,合肥230032 [2]安徽医科大学临床药理研究所,合肥230032 [3]安徽医科大学卫生管理学院,合肥230032

出　　处：《安徽医科大学学报》2007年第3期333-335,共3页Acta Universitatis Medicinalis Anhui

基　　金：国家自然科学基金;编号:30271606);安徽省教育厅科研基金(编号:2002kj146;KJ2007B144)

摘　　要：目的比较全身或局部使用米诺环素加机械治疗与仅用机械治疗对慢性牙周炎的疗效的影响。方法通过观察临床牙周指数在治疗前后的变化,比较三组之间疗效差异。结果三组的临床牙周指数较治疗前差异均有显著性;4周时,局部给药组的牙龈指数、探诊深度和附着丧失较全身给药组和机械治疗组有显著性,12周时,局部给药组的上述指标与全身给药组差异无显著性,但较机械组差异有显著性。结论局部和全身使用米诺环素可有效提高牙周炎的临床疗效,但与局部给药相比,全身给药的疗效需要较长时间方可显现。Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effects of topical delivery minocycline with scaling and root planing （ LM group）, systemic delivery minocycline with scaling and root planing （ SM group） or only scaling and root planing （ SRP group） in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. Methods Evaluate the therapeutic effect of 3 groups by variations of clinical periodontal index. Results Comparing to the baseline, the clinic periodontal index can be improved significantly in three groups at 4 weeks and 12 weeks. At 4 weeks, gingival index, periodontal probing depth and attachment loss in the LM group was improved significantly comparing to the SM group or the SRP group; At 12 weeks, there were no difference between LM group and SM group, but clinic indexs of these two groups were significantly improved comparing to the SRP group. Conclusion Both minocycline regimen groups can improved the clinic therapeutic results in chronic periodontitis. Comparing to LM group , SM group need more time to achieve the same clinic therapeutic results.

关 键 词：米诺环素/治疗应用 牙周炎/药物疗法 投药 局部 

分 类 号：R781.420.53[医药卫生—口腔医学] R978.14[医药卫生—临床医学]