不同超声器械龈下刮治对牙根面的影响  

Effects of subgingival scaling with different ultrasonic instruments on root surface

作　　者：蔡明星 姚远 柯丽娜 

机构地区：[1]广东省珠海市口腔医院牙周黏膜病科,广东珠海519000

出　　处：《中国医药导报》2017年第12期121-124,共4页China Medical Herald

基　　金：广东省珠海市医学科研课题立项(2016J039)

摘　　要：目的探讨不同超声器械进行龈下刮治对牙根面的影响。方法选择2015年7~12月因严重牙周病而在珠海市口腔医院行牙齿拔出的患牙56颗。56颗牙齿采用随机数字表法分为第1组(采用奥丹超声仪治疗)、第2组(采用EMS超声仪治疗)、第3组(采用迪尔Vector超声系统治疗)以及第4组(手工刮治),每组14颗牙齿。比较各组刮治时间,光镜下观察牙根表面划粗糙度、划痕等损伤情况。结果第1组平均治疗时间为(42.3±4.8)s,第2组平均治疗时间为(56.1±6.2)s,第3组平均治疗时间为(165.2±22.6)s,第4组平均治疗时间为(68.8±11.3)s;各组间比较差异有统计学意义(F=249.050,P<0.01);组间比较,第2~4组平均治疗时间显著长于第1组,差异均有高度统计学意义(t=6.585、19.903、8.076,均P<0.01);第3、4组平均治疗时间显著长于第2组,差异均有高度统计学意义(t=17.419、3.687,均P<0.01);第3组均治疗时间显著长于第4组,差异有高度统计学意义(t=14.275,P<0.01)。四组牙根面粗糙分级比较差异有统计学意义(H=20.213,P<0.05);第1组粗糙程度高于第3、4组(u=12.864、16.900,P<0.05),第1组与第2组比较,差异无统计学意义(u=1.363,P>0.05);第2组粗糙程度高于第3、4组(u=7.369、11.455,P<0.05),第3组与第4组比较,差异无统计学意义(u=1.341,P>0.05)。第1组电镜下牙根面凹凸不平,明显可见划痕,可见牙骨质少量片状剥落,部分位置有玷污残留。第2组,电镜下牙根面欠光滑,有玷污残留,部分位点有少量划痕,无明显凿空以及牙骨质剥落。第3组,电镜下牙根光滑,可有少量玷污层,牙根表面未见划痕。第4组电镜下牙根表面光滑,有不规则玷污层残留,牙骨质无明显脱落。结论与传统超声仪刮治以及手工刮治比较,Vector具有更明显的优势,清除牙石级菌斑效果更明显,而对牙根表面的损伤更轻。Objective To discuss the effects of different ultrasonic instruments on the root surface of the root surface. Methods The teeth out 56 from July to December 2015 due to severe periodontal disease in Zhuhai Stomatological Hospital were selected. 56 teeth were divided into the first group （Aodan ultrasound treatment）, the second group （EMS ultrasound treatment）, the third group （Vector ultrasound treatment） and the fourth group （manual ubgingival scaling） by random number table method, with 14 teeth in each group. Scraping treatment time, under the light microscope to observe the root surface roughness, scratches and other damage of four groups were compared. Results The average treatment time of the first group was （42.3±4.8）s, the second group was （56.1±6.2）s, the third group was （165.2±22.6）s, and the forth group was （68.8±11.3）s. There was significant difference in four groups（F=249.05, P 〈 0.01）; the average treatment time of the second - forth group was longer than that of the first group, and the differences were statistically significant （t=6.585, 19.903, 8.076, all P 〈 0.01）; The average treatment time of the third group and the forth group was longer than that of the second group, and the differences were statistically significant（t=17.419, 3.687, all P 〈 0.01）; the average treatment time of the third group was longer than that of the forth group, and the differences were statistically significant （t=14.275, P 〈 0,01）. The root surface roughness classification of the four groups showed significant difference （H=20.213, P 〈 0.05）; The rough classification of the first group was higher than that of the third group and the fourth group （u=12.864, 16.900, P 〈 0.05）; the difference between the first group and the second group was not significant （u=1.363, P 〉 0.05）; the rough classification of the second group was higher than that of the third group and the fourth group （u=7.369, 11.455, P 〈 0.05）; the difference between the th

关 键 词：超声器械 龈下刮治 牙根 影响 

分 类 号：R78[医药卫生—口腔医学]