Yan Y, Wang X E, Zhan Y L, Miao L L, Han Y, Zhang C R, Yue Z G, Hu W J, Hou J X
Department of Periodontology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Department of General Dentistry, First Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100034, China.
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020 Feb 18;52(1):64-70. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.01.010.
To compare the clinical effects of ultrasonic subgingival debridement and ultrasonic subgingival debridement combined with manual root planing on severe periodontitis and then to investigate the necessity and significance of manual root planing.
Twenty-three patients with severe periodontitis participated in this split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical trial. Baseline examination and randomization were performed after supragingival scaling: each of the upper and lower jaws had a quadrant as the test group treated with ultrasonic subgingival debridement combined with manual root planing, whereas the other two quadrants were the control group treated with ultrasonic subgingival debridement. Treatment of each patient was at intervals of one week and completed in two visits. Clinical indicators concerning probing depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL) and bleeding index (BI) were recorded at baseline and 1 month, 3 months, 6 months after treatment.
There was no significant difference of periodontal indicators between the test group and the control group at baseline. Both the test group and control group resulted in significant improvement of PD, CAL and BI. One and three months after treatment, reduction of PD in the test group was higher than that in the control group [1 month: (2.13±1.31) mm vs. (1.79±1.33) mm, P<0.01; 3 months: (2.46±1.33) mm vs. (2.17±1.38) mm, P<0.01] and reduction of CAL in the test group was higher than that in the control group [1 month: (1.89±2.03) mm vs. (1.65±1.93) mm, P<0.01; 3 months: (2.03±2.05) mm vs. (1.83±1.97) mm, P<0.05]. Six months after treatment, PD in the test group and the control group decreased by (2.52±1.40) mm and (2.35±1.37) mm respectively, and the improvement in the test group was significantly better than that in the control group (P<0.01). CAL in the test group and the control group decreased by (1.89±2.14) mm and (1.77±2.00) mm respectively, and there was no statistical difference between the groups. There was no significant difference in the changes of BI between the two groups 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment.
Ultrasonic subgingival debridement combined with manual root planing has more reduction in PD and CAL compared with ultrasonic subgingival debridement. Therefore, it is still necessary to use manual instruments for root planing following ultrasonic subgingival debridement.
比较超声龈下刮治术与超声龈下刮治术联合手动根面平整术治疗重度牙周炎的临床效果,进而探讨手动根面平整术的必要性及意义。
23例重度牙周炎患者参与了这项半口随机对照临床试验。在进行龈上洁治后进行基线检查和随机分组:上下颌各有一个象限作为试验组,采用超声龈下刮治术联合手动根面平整术进行治疗,而另外两个象限作为对照组,采用超声龈下刮治术进行治疗。每位患者的治疗间隔为1周,分两次就诊完成。在基线以及治疗后1个月、3个月、6个月记录探诊深度(PD)、临床附着丧失(CAL)和出血指数(BI)等临床指标。
试验组和对照组在基线时牙周指标无显著差异。试验组和对照组的PD、CAL和BI均有显著改善。治疗后1个月和3个月,试验组PD的降低幅度高于对照组[1个月:(2.13±1.31)mm对(1.79±1.33)mm,P<0.01;3个月:(2.46±1.33)mm对(2.17±1.38)mm,P<0.01],试验组CAL的降低幅度高于对照组[1个月:(1.89±2.03)mm对(1.65±1.93)mm,P<0.01;3个月:(2.03±2.05)mm对(1.83±1.97)mm,P<0.05]。治疗后6个月,试验组和对照组的PD分别降低了(2.52±1.40)mm和(2.35±1.37)mm,试验组的改善情况明显优于对照组(P<0.01)。试验组和对照组的CAL分别降低了(1.89±2.14)mm和(1.77±2.00)mm,两组间无统计学差异。治疗后1个月、3个月和6个月,两组BI的变化无显著差异。
与超声龈下刮治术相比,超声龈下刮治术联合手动根面平整术在PD和CAL的降低方面效果更显著。因此,在超声龈下刮治术后仍有必要使用手动器械进行根面平整。