论文部分内容阅读
目的评价一次性全口龈下刮治和根面平整(full-mouth scaling and root planning,FM-SRP)与传统的分区龈下刮治和根面平整(quadrant scaling and root planning,Q-SRP)相比较是否更有利于慢性牙周炎临床指数的改善。方法将2008年9月至2009年6月沈阳市口腔医院牙周黏膜科收治的30例慢性牙周炎患者随机分为2组,每组15例。FM-SRP组在24h内完成全口所有象限的刮治和根面平整,而Q-SRP组每周进行1个象限的刮治,连续4周完成全口治疗。分别在基线和3个月时,检测菌斑指数(PLI)、龈沟出血指数(SBI)、探诊深度(PD)及附着丧失(AL)的变化,比较两种治疗方法的临床疗效。结果与基线时相比,两种治疗方式在3个月时的所有临床牙周指数均有显著改善(P<0.01),但两组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 FM-SRP和Q-SRP两种方法可达到相同的临床效果,临床医生可以根据实际情况灵活选择任何一种治疗方法。
Objective To evaluate the effect of one-off full mouth subgingival scaling and full-mouth scaling and root planning (FM-SRP) with conventional sub-regional scaling and root planning (Q-SRP) Whether it is more conducive to the improvement of clinical index of chronic periodontitis. Methods Seventy patients with chronic periodontitis who were admitted to periodontal mucosa of Shenyang Stomatology Hospital from September 2008 to June 2009 were randomly divided into two groups (n = 15 in each group). In the FM-SRP group, all the quadrants of the quadrant were scraped and root-trimmed within 24 h, while the Q-SRP group was treated with one quadrant weekly scraping and complete oral treatment for 4 weeks. The changes of plaque index (PLI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI), probing depth (PD) and attachment loss (AL) were detected at baseline and at 3 months. The clinical efficacy of the two treatments were compared. Results Compared with baseline, all clinical periodontal indices of both treatment groups were significantly improved at 3 months (P <0.01), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). Conclusion The two methods of FM-SRP and Q-SRP can achieve the same clinical effect. Clinicians can flexibly choose any one of the treatment methods according to the actual situation.