Suppr超能文献

比较不同的探诊出血评估方法作为牙龈炎指标的情况。

Comparison of different approaches to assess bleeding on probing as indicators of gingivitis.

作者信息

Van der Weijden G A, Timmerman M F, Nijboer A, Reijerse E, Van der Velden U

机构信息

Department of Periodontology, ATCA, Academic Centre for Dentistry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Clin Periodontol. 1994 Oct;21(9):589-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1994.tb00748.x.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate different methods of eliciting gingival bleeding as indicators of gingival inflammation in the experimental gingivitis model. Following a period of stringent oral hygiene, 103 dental students were scored for plaque and gingival bleeding assessed by 4 methods. From this group, 41 volunteers were randomly allocated to 2 treatment groups. Dental students with clean teeth and healthy gingivae were asked to abolish all mechanical tooth cleaning in the lower jaw for a period of 3-weeks. During the 21-day experimental period, chlorhexidine (Peridex) or a placebo mouthrinse was applied to the lower jaw. Subjects brushed the upper jaw with a standard toothpaste. In principal, 2 different methods were employed to provoke bleeding: (1) at the marginal gingival tissue by running a probe along the soft tissue wall at the orifice of the pocket, and (2) by probing to the "bottom" of the pocket. Variations in the methods were based on angulation (AngBI, ParBI) of the probe in relation to the tooth surface and to the probing force (PPBI.25N, PPBI.75N). 1 randomly selected quadrant in the lower jaw was scored using the AngBI. The opposing quadrant was scored with a randomly-allocated bleeding index, either ParBI, PPBI.25N or PPBI.75N. The results of this study confirm earlier findings that the angulation of the probe determines the number of sites with bleeding observed. It also indicates that bleeding as elicited by probing to the bottom of the pocket is a poor indicator of early gingivitis. It is recommended that gingivitis should be assessed by probing the marginal gingiva.

摘要

本研究的目的是评估在实验性牙龈炎模型中,引发牙龈出血的不同方法作为牙龈炎症指标的情况。在一段严格的口腔卫生期之后,103名牙科专业学生接受了菌斑和牙龈出血的评分,采用了4种方法进行评估。从该组中,41名志愿者被随机分配到2个治疗组。要求牙齿清洁且牙龈健康的牙科专业学生在下颌停止所有机械性牙齿清洁,为期3周。在21天的实验期内,对下颌使用洗必泰(派丽奥)或安慰剂漱口水。受试者用标准牙膏刷洗上颌。原则上,采用2种不同方法引发出血:(1)沿着袋口软组织壁用探针划过,在边缘牙龈组织处引发出血;(2)探到袋“底部”引发出血。方法的变化基于探针相对于牙齿表面的角度(角度出血指数、平行出血指数)以及探诊力(25N探诊力出血指数、75N探诊力出血指数)。在下颌随机选择1个象限,使用角度出血指数进行评分。相对的象限用随机分配的出血指数进行评分,即平行出血指数、25N探诊力出血指数或75N探诊力出血指数。本研究结果证实了早期的发现,即探针的角度决定了观察到的出血部位数量。研究还表明,探到袋底部引发的出血是早期牙龈炎的一个不良指标。建议通过探诊边缘牙龈来评估牙龈炎。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验