Gupta Batra Shweta, Khatri Manish, Bansal Mansi, Batra Puneet, Khatri Ayush, Bint Aziz Sana
Department of Periodontology, Institute of Dental Studies & Technologies, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Manav Rachna Dental College, School of Dental Sciences, Manav Rachna International Institute of Research & Studies, Faridabad, Haryana, India.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2025 Sep;62(9):1523-1534. doi: 10.1177/10556656241263442. Epub 2024 Jul 21.
ObjectiveTo assess the oral health status and microbiota of subgingival plaque in patients with surgically repaired cleft lip and palate (CLP) during orthodontic treatment for maxillary protraction with two different orthodontic appliances.DesignRandomized controlled trialSettingInstitutional.ParticipantsA total of 90 patients with surgically repaired Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate, out of initially enrolled 120 patients, were divided into 3 groups: experimental group I, experimental group II and control group, with 30 subjects each. Patients with a history of oral prophylaxis in last 6 months or antibiotic therapy within 3 months were excluded from the study.InterventionsBone Anchored Maxillary Protraction was done in experimental group I, while facemask with acrylic occlusal splint was used for maxillary protraction in experimental group II and no orthodontic intervention in control group.Mean Outcome MeasuresPlaque Index (PI), Gingival Index (GI), Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), Probing Depth (PD), and microbiota of subgingival plaque (, , and ) were compared at baseline (T) and after 8 months (T).ResultsThe PI, GI, GBI and PD were observed to be significantly higher in experimental group II followed by experimental group I as compared to control group at 8 months interval ( < .001). The microbiota counts increased significantly in experimental group II and experimental group I ( < .001), as compared to control group.ConclusionMaxillary protraction with facemask and bone plates was found to be a better alternative than facemask with occlusal splint, considering the overall oral health of patients with CLP.
目的
评估唇腭裂手术修复患者在使用两种不同正畸矫治器进行上颌前牵引正畸治疗期间龈下菌斑的口腔健康状况和微生物群。
设计
随机对照试验
地点
机构
参与者
最初招募的120例单侧唇腭裂手术修复患者中,共有90例被分为3组:实验组I、实验组II和对照组,每组30例。排除过去6个月内有口腔预防史或3个月内接受过抗生素治疗的患者。
干预措施
实验组I采用骨锚式上颌前牵引,实验组II使用带丙烯酸咬合夹板的面罩进行上颌前牵引,对照组不进行正畸干预。
主要观察指标
在基线(T0)和8个月后(T8)比较菌斑指数(PI)、牙龈指数(GI)、牙龈出血指数(GBI)、探诊深度(PD)以及龈下菌斑的微生物群(变形链球菌、嗜酸乳杆菌、牙龈卟啉单胞菌和具核梭杆菌)。
结果
在8个月时,观察到实验组II的PI、GI、GBI和PD显著高于实验组I,而实验组I又显著高于对照组(P<0.001)。与对照组相比,实验组II和实验组I的微生物群计数显著增加(P<0.001)。
结论
考虑到唇腭裂患者的整体口腔健康,发现使用面罩和骨板进行上颌前牵引比使用带咬合夹板的面罩是更好的选择。