Pihlstrom B L, McHugh R B, Oliphant T H, Ortiz-Campos C
J Clin Periodontol. 1983 Sep;10(5):524-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1983.tb02182.x.
Many well designed clinical studies have established the effectiveness of periodontal therapy. Surgical procedures have been shown to be effective in treating periodontitis when followed by appropriate maintenance care. Scaling and root planing alone have recently been compared to scaling and root planing plus soft tissue surgery in several longitudinal trials. A review of the literature indicates several important findings including a loss of clinical attachment following flap procedures for shallow (1-3 mm) pockets and no clinically significant loss after scaling and root planing. These studies also generally report either a gain or maintenance of attachment level for both procedures in deeper pockets (greater than or equal to 4 mm). For these pockets, neither procedure has been shown to be uniformly superior with respect to attachment gain. All reports indicate that both treatment methods result in pocket reduction. However, the literature also indicates that scaling and root planing combined with a flap procedure results in greater initial pocket reduction than does scaling and root planing alone. This difference in degree of pocket reduction between procedures tends to decrease beyond 1-2 years. It has been shown that both treatment methods result in sustained decreases in gingivitis, plaque and calculus and neither procedure appears to be superior with respect to these parameters. Additional data from the study at the University of Minnesota indicate that similar results are maintained up to 61/2 years following active therapy. Pocket depth did not change for shallow (1-3 mm) pockets treated by either scaling and root planing alone or scaling and root planing followed by a modified Widman flap. For pockets 4-6 mm, both treatment procedures resulted in equally effective sustained pocket reduction. Deep pockets (greater than or equal to 7 mm) were initially reduced more by the flap procedure. After 2 years, no consistent difference between treatment methods was found in degree of pocket reduction. However, as compared to baseline, pocket reduction was sustained to 61/2 years with the flap and only 3 years with scaling and root planing alone. After 61/2 years, sustained attachment loss in shallow (1-3 mm) pockets was found after the modified Widman flap. Scaling and root planing alone in these shallow pockets did not result in sustained attachment loss. For pockets initially 4-6 mm in depth, attachment level was maintained by both procedures but scaling and root planing resulted in greater gain in attachment as compared to the flap at all time intervals.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
许多设计精良的临床研究已证实牙周治疗的有效性。手术治疗在后续进行适当的维护护理时,已被证明对治疗牙周炎有效。在多项纵向试验中,近期已将单纯的龈下刮治和根面平整与龈下刮治和根面平整加软组织手术进行了比较。文献综述显示了几个重要发现,包括浅袋(1 - 3毫米)翻瓣手术后临床附着丧失,而龈下刮治和根面平整后无临床显著丧失。这些研究通常还报告,对于较深袋(大于或等于4毫米),两种治疗方法在附着水平上均有增加或维持。对于这些深袋,在附着增加方面,尚未显示哪种方法始终更具优势。所有报告均表明,两种治疗方法均可使牙周袋深度减小。然而,文献还表明,龈下刮治和根面平整联合翻瓣手术比单纯龈下刮治和根面平整能使牙周袋深度在初始阶段减小得更多。两种治疗方法在牙周袋深度减小程度上的差异在1 - 2年后往往会减小。已表明两种治疗方法均可使牙龈炎、菌斑和牙石持续减少,且在这些参数方面,两种方法似乎都不具优势。明尼苏达大学研究的其他数据表明,积极治疗后长达6.5年可维持类似结果。对于单纯龈下刮治和根面平整或龈下刮治和根面平整后行改良嵴顶翻瓣术治疗的浅袋(1 - 3毫米),牙周袋深度未改变。对于4 - 6毫米的牙周袋,两种治疗方法在持续减小牙周袋深度方面同样有效。深袋(大于或等于7毫米)最初经翻瓣手术减小得更多。2年后,在牙周袋深度减小程度上未发现两种治疗方法之间存在一致差异。然而,与基线相比,翻瓣手术能使牙周袋深度减小持续至6.5年,而单纯龈下刮治和根面平整仅能维持3年。6.5年后,改良嵴顶翻瓣术后浅袋(1 - 3毫米)出现持续的附着丧失。在这些浅袋中单纯龈下刮治和根面平整未导致持续的附着丧失。对于初始深度为4 - 6毫米的牙周袋,两种治疗方法均能维持附着水平,但在所有时间间隔内,龈下刮治和根面平整与翻瓣手术相比,在附着增加方面效果更佳。(摘要截选至400字)