Zhang Y W, Xin T Y, Jiao J, Zhou Y H, Shi J
Department of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Department of Periodontology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2018 Apr 18;50(2):308-313.
To retrospectively evaluate clinical and radiographic records of chronic periodontitis patients who underwent extraction-orthodontic treatment, in order to determine the effect of the treatment on probing depth, alveolar bone height of teeth adjacent to the extraction sites.
In the study, 33 chronic periodontitis patients who had finished extraction-orthodontic treatment were selected, the periodontal examination system tables and panoramic tomography were recorded before treatment (T0) and after treatment (T1), and the periodontal probing depth (PD), residual alveolar bone height (RBH) of the teeth adjacent to extraction sites (TAES) and the non-teeth adjacent to extraction sites (NTAES) were measured at T0 and T1.
There was insignificant difference in PD of TAES and NTAES at T0 [(2.40±0.51) mm vs. (2.42±0.55) mm,P>0.05], neither was that at T1 [(2.70±0.67) mm vs. (2.67±0.64) mm, P>0.05]; From T0 to T1, PD of TAES and NTAES had mean increases of 0.3 mm [(2.40±0.51) mm vs. (2.70±0.67) mm,P<0.01] and 0.25 mm [(2.42±0.55 mm vs. (2.67±0.64) mm, P<0.01], respectively. And PD of TAES and NTAES increased from T0 to T1 statistically in the same degree [(0.30±0.64) mm vs. (0.25±0.58) mm,P>0.05]; at T0, RBH of TAES was 0.024 smaller than that of NTAES (0.74±0.16 vs. 0.76±0.16,P<0.05), but there was no difference in RBH between the TAES and NTAES at T1 (0.78±0.14 vs. 0.79±0.12,P>0.05); From T0 to T1, RBH of TAES and NTAES had mean increases of 0.04 (0.74±0.16 vs.0.78±0.14,P<0.05) and 0.02 (0.76±0.16 vs. 0.79±0.12,P<0.05), respectively. And the change of RBH between TAES and NTAES from T0 to T1 had no statistical difference (0.04±0.11 vs. 0.02±0.08,P>0.05)RBH of TAES in the side close to extraction sites was as the same as that of TAES in the side away from the extraction sites at T0 (0.73±0.17 vs. 0.74±0.16,P>0.05). From T0 to T1, RBH of both sides of TAES had mean increases of 0.04 (0.73±0.11 vs. 0.77±0.11,P<0.05) and 0.04 (0.74±0.11 vs. 0.78±0.11,P<0.05), respectively. But for both sides of TAES, from T0 to T1, there was no significant difference in change of RBH (0.04±0.11 vs. 0.04±0.11,P>0.05).
With strict control of periodontal inflammation and maintenance of oral hygiene, orthodontic treatment preserves the periodontal conditions in patients with chronic periodontitis, and the extraction-orthodontic treatment can preserve the bone height of the teeth adjacent to extraction sites.
回顾性评估接受拔牙 - 正畸治疗的慢性牙周炎患者的临床和影像学记录,以确定该治疗对拔牙部位相邻牙齿的探诊深度、牙槽骨高度的影响。
本研究选取33例已完成拔牙 - 正畸治疗的慢性牙周炎患者,记录治疗前(T0)和治疗后(T1)的牙周检查系统表格及全景断层扫描,在T0和T1时测量拔牙部位相邻牙齿(TAES)和非拔牙部位相邻牙齿(NTAES)的牙周探诊深度(PD)、剩余牙槽骨高度(RBH)。
T0时TAES和NTAES的PD无显著差异[(2.40±0.51)mm对(2.42±0.55)mm,P>0.05],T1时也无差异[(2.70±0.67)mm对(2.67±0.64)mm,P>0.05];从T0到T1,TAES和NTAES的PD平均增加0.3mm[(2.40±0.51)mm对(2.70±0.67)mm,P<0.01]和0.25mm[(2.42±0.55)mm对(2.67±0.64)mm,P<0.01],且TAES和NTAES的PD从T0到T1的增加程度在统计学上相同[(0.30±0.64)mm对(0.25±0.58)mm,P>0.05];T0时,TAES的RBH比NTAES小0.024(0.74±0.16对0.76±0.16,P<0.05),但T1时TAES和NTAES的RBH无差异(0.78±0.14对0.79±0.12,P>0.05);从T0到T1,TAES和NTAES的RBH平均增加0.04(0.74±0.16对0.78±0.14,P<0.05)和0.02(0.七十六±0.16对0.79±0.12,P<0.05),且TAES和NTAES从T0到T1的RBH变化无统计学差异(0.04±0.11对0.02±0.08,P>0.05)。T0时TAES靠近拔牙部位一侧的RBH与远离拔牙部位一侧的RBH相同(0.73±0.17对0.74±0.16,P>0.05)。从T0到T1,TAES两侧的RBH平均增加0.04(0.73±0.11对0.77±0.11,P<0.05)和0.04(0.74±0.11对0.78±0.11,P<0.05),但TAES两侧从T0到T1的RBH变化无显著差异(0.04±0.11对0.04±0.11,P>0.05)。
在严格控制牙周炎症并保持口腔卫生的情况下,正畸治疗可维持慢性牙周炎患者的牙周状况,拔牙 - 正畸治疗可保留拔牙部位相邻牙齿的骨高度。