论文部分内容阅读
目的 :比较压电式、磁伸缩式超声龈下刮治器及龈下手工器械3种临床常用龈下刮治器对磨牙根面的刮治效率,研究牙周袋深度及超声功率设定大小对超声器械龈下刮治效率的影响。方法:分别以压电式、磁伸缩式超声龈下刮治器械和龈下刮治手工器械在2 min内对30例实验根面进行5或7 mm袋深、全功率或半功率设置的模拟龈下刮治,比较不同器械间的根面刮治效率。采用SAS6.12软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果:不同参数设定下超声器械的刮治残留率均小于手工器械,全功率、5 mm袋深下磁伸缩式刮治残留率显著小于压电式(P<0.01);而7 mm袋深则压电式刮治残留率显著小于磁伸缩式;半功率、5 mm袋深下压电式与磁伸缩式无显著差异(P=0.217);而7 mm袋深时压电式、磁伸缩式与手工器械3者均无显著差异(P=0.574);7 mm袋深时的刮治残留率均显著高于5 mm袋深时(P<0.01);功率设定不同对于压电式或磁伸缩式超声器械的刮治影响均不显著。结论:超声龈下器械的刮治效率优于手工器械,3种器械的刮治效率均随牙周袋深度增加而下降。压电式与磁伸缩式器械无显著差异。超声龈下刮治器械的半功率设置对刮治效率的影响并不显著。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficiency of scraping the root surface of molars with three kinds of commonly used subgingival scaling tools, including piezoelectric and magnetic telescopic ultrasonic subgingival scaling instruments and subgingival hand tools, and to study the effects of setting the depth of pocket and ultrasonic power setting Effect of ultrasound on subgingival scaling efficiency. Methods: A total of 30 experimental root surfaces were simulated with 5 or 7 mm bag-depth, full-power or half-power setting in 2 min by using piezoelectric, magnetostrictive ultrasonic subgingival scaling instruments and subgingival scaling manual instruments respectively Subgingival cure, compare different devices between the root scraping cure efficiency. SAS6.12 software package for statistical analysis of the data. Results: The remnant rates of ultrasonic devices under different parameters were all less than that of hand instruments. At full power, the residual remnants of magnetostrictive remover under 5 mm bag depth were significantly less than that of piezoelectric devices (P <0.01) The residual rate of piezoelectric curettage was significantly less than that of magnetostrictive; at half power, there was no significant difference between piezoelectric and magnetostrictive at 5 mm pouch depth (P = 0.217); while at 7 mm pouch, piezoelectric and magnetostrictive (P = 0.574); residual cure rate at 7 mm pouch depth was significantly higher than at 5 mm pouch depth (P <0.01); power setting was different for either piezoelectric or Magnetic retractable ultrasonic device scraping effect are not significant. Conclusion: The cure rate of ultrasonic subgingival devices is superior to that of hand instruments. The cure rates of three kinds of instruments decrease with the increase of periodontal pocket depth. Piezoelectric and magnetic telescopic apparatus no significant difference. Ultrasonic subgingival scaling device half-power settings on the cure efficiency is not significant.