ErYAG激光与Gluma脱敏剂治疗牙本质敏感的效果分析  

Analysis of the Effect of ErYAG Laser and Gluma Desensitizer on Dentin Sensitivity

作　　者：孙宁[1] SUN Ning(Department of Stomatology,Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital,Shanxi College of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Taiyuan,Shanxi Province,030001 China)

机构地区：[1]山西中医学院中西医结合医院口腔科,山西太原030001

出　　处：《世界复合医学》2018年第3期74-76,共3页World Journal of Complex Medicine

摘　　要：目的探讨ErYAG激光与Gluma脱敏剂治疗牙本质敏感的效果分析。方法选择自2015年1月—2017年12月收治的158例牙本质敏感患者为对象,并随机划分为3组,分别给予ErYAG激光治疗、Gluma脱敏剂治疗、ErYAG激光联合Gluma脱敏剂治疗,并持续跟踪随访6个月。比较分析3组治疗效果及治疗前后的VAS评分。结果联合组治疗前VAS评分(7.13±1.14)分与ErYAG差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),联合组治疗后即刻VAS评分(2.45±0.56)分低于ErYAG组(P<0.05),联合组治疗后1个月VAS评分(3.05±0.71)分低于ErYAG组差异无统计学意义(P<0.05),联合组治疗后6个月VAS评分(4.09±0.93)分低于ErYAG组(P<0.05)。联合组治疗前VAS评分(7.13±1.14)分与Gluma组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),联合组治疗后即刻VAS评分(2.45±0.56)分低于Gluma组(P<0.05),联合组治疗后1个月VAS评分(3.05±0.71)分低于Gluma组(P<0.05),联合组治疗后6个月VAS评分(4.09±0.93)分低于Gluma组(P<0.05)。联合组治疗后即刻治疗总有效率(98.28%)高于Gluma组(P<0.05),联合组治疗后6个月治疗总有效率(79.31%)高于Gluma组(P<0.05)。联合组治疗后即刻治疗总有效率(98.28%)高于ErYAG组(P<0.05),联合组治疗后6个月的治疗总有效率(79.31%)高于ErYAG组(P<0.05)。结论牙本质敏感应用ErYAG激光联合Gluma脱敏剂治疗的效果更显著。Objective To investigate the effect of ErYAG laser and Gluma desensitizer on dentin sensitivity. Methods A total of 158 patients with dentin-sensitive patients who were admitted from January 2015 to December 2017 were randomly divided into three groups, including ErYAG laser treatment, Gluma desensitizer treatment, and ErYAG laser combined with Gluma desensitizer, and continue to follow up for 6 months. The three groups of treatment effects and the VAS scores before and after treatment were compared and analyzed. Results The pre-treatment VAS score（7.13±1.14）points was not different from the ErYAG group（P〈0.05）. The VAS score（2.45±0.56）points was lower in the combined group than in the ErYAG group（P〈0.05）. The VAS score（3.05±0.71）points in the latter 1 month was lower than that in the ErYAG group（P〈0.05）. The VAS score（4.09±0.93）points in the 6 months after treatment in the combined group was lower than that in the ErYAG group（P〈0.05）. The VAS score（7.13±1.14）points before treatment in the combined group was not different from that in the Gluma group（P〈0.05）. The VAS score（2.45±0.56）points immediately after treatment in the combined group was lower than that in the Gluma group（P〈0.05）. The 1 month VAS score（3.05±0.71）points was lower than that of the Gluma group（P〈0.05）. The VAS score（4.09±0.93）points at 6 months after treatment in the combined group was lower than thatin the Gluma group（P〈0.05）. The total effective rate（98.28%） was higher in the combined group than in the Gluma group（P〈0.05）.The total effective rate（79.31%） was higher in the combined group than in the Gluma group（P〈0.05）. The total effective rate（98.28%） was higher in the combined group than in the ErYAG group（P〈0.05）. The total effective rate（79.31%） in the combined group was higher than that in the ErYAG group（P〈0.05）. Conclusion The effect of dentin sensitive ErYAG laser combined with Gluma desensitizer is more signi

关 键 词：ErYAG激光 GLUMA脱敏剂 牙本质敏感 效果 分析 

分 类 号：R781[医药卫生—口腔医学]