喷砂与手器刮治清除龈下菌斑的效果比较  

Comparison of subgingival debridement efficacy of air polishing and manual scaling

作　　者：胡琮佼[1] 尹元正[1] 管丹萍[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院.口腔医学院牙周病科上海市口腔医学重点实验室,上海200011

出　　处：《上海口腔医学》2015年第5期602-606,共5页Shanghai Journal of Stomatology

摘　　要：目的 ：探讨袋深3~6 mm的龈下环境中,龈下喷砂技术的治疗效果及维持时间,比较龈下喷砂技术与传统手器刮治的效果。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3~6 mm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≤4 mm且BOP阴性）的位点百分比,作为辅助观测指标。采用SAS8.2软件包对实验数据进行配对t检验。结果：研究纳入31例患者,治疗过程中PI均值为0.8。喷砂组与手器刮治组术后第7天PD均显著下降（P〈0.01）。喷砂组术后第7天BOP百分比（BOP%）与术前相比显著减少（P=0.0390）,术后第30天则与术前无显著差异;手器刮治组在术后30天观察期内BOP%呈下降趋势,并于术后第30天较术前出现显著改善;但喷砂、手器刮治2组间比较,其BOP%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天均显著提高（分别为P=0.0329及P=0.0035）。结论：针对袋深3~6 mm的龈下环境,甘氨酸龈下喷砂技术与传统手器刮治同样对改善维护期牙周临床指标有一定效果,但2种治疗方法间无显著差异。PURPOSE： To assess the efficacy of subgingival air polishing and traditional manual scaling in 3-6 mm pockets. METHODS： Patients with chronic periodontitis who were in the maintenance phase were randomly assigned to receive subgingival air polishing （experimental group） and manual scaling （control group） in 4 teeth with probing depths of 3 to 6 mm. Clinical variables including plaque index （PI）, probing depth （PD）, probing on bleeding （BOP） and gingival recession （GR） were recorded at baseline, 7 and 30 days post-treatment. ＂Pocket closure＂ [PD ~〈4 mm and BOP（-）] was also calculated as supplementary data. The data of the 2 groups were compared using paired t test with SAS 8.2 software package. RESULTS： Thirty-one patients were enrolled and PI was 0.8 during the study. Both treatment procedures resulted in significant reductions of PD at day 7 （P〈0.0001）. BOP% had significant reduction in the experimental group at day 7 （P=-0.0390）, but there was no significant difference compared to baseline at day 30. Meanwhile, BOP% in the control group demonstrated downward trends during the study, and significant improvement at day 30. The percentages of sites of ＂pocket closure＂ significantly increased in both groups （P=0.0329 and P=0.0035, respectively）. CONCLUSIONS： The study indicates that subgingival air polishing and traditional manual scaling are both effective for improving clinical variables during supportive periodontal therapy （SPT） in teeth with probing depths of 3 to 6 mm. But the results reveal no significant difference between the 2 modalities.

关 键 词：喷砂 手器刮治 龈下菌斑 牙周病 

分 类 号：R781.4[医药卫生—口腔医学]