常用龈下刮治器械对磨牙根面刮治效率的比较

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2017.01.011

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 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。

关键词: 龈下刮治, 超声器械, 刮治效率

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of traditional manual scaling and piezoelectric and magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaling in regard to periodontal pocket depth and power setting. METHODS: Thirty extracted human molars were assigned to receive manual scaling or ultrasonic scaling (both on the full or half power setting) with probing depth of 5 and 7 mm for 2 min. The remained oil materials on the roots were calculated as supplementary data. The data were compared using SAS6.12 software package. RESULTS: The procedures of ultrasonic scaling resulted in reductions of the values than manual scaling in all groups. The data of the magnetostrictive group were significantly smaller than the piezoelectric group in 5 mm pocket depth (P<0.01) on full power setting, while the opposite in 7 mm pocket depth. There was no significant difference between piezoelectric and magnetostrictive scaling in both 5 mm (P=0.217) and 7 mm (P=0.574) pocket depth on half power setting. The data increased significantly from 5 to 7 mm pocket depth (P<0.01), but no significant influence on different power settings. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that ultrasonic scaling instruments are more effective than a hand curette and the scaling efficacy decreased in deeper periodontal pocket.The results reveal no significant difference between magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments whether on half or full power settings.

Key words: Subgingival scaling, Ultrasonic instrument, Scaling efficacy

中图分类号:

R781.4

陈美华, 尹元正. 常用龈下刮治器械对磨牙根面刮治效率的比较[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2017, 26(1): 54-58.

CHEN Mei-hua, YIN Yuan-zheng. Efficacy of subgingival scaling of the molars with conventional scalers in vitro [J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2017, 26(1): 54-58.

参考文献

[1] Lombardo G, Signoretto C, Corrocher G, et al. A topical desiccant agent in association with ultrasonic debridement in the initial treatment of chronic periodontitis: a clinical and microbiological study [J]. New Microbiol, 2015, 38(3): 393-407.
[2] Parashis AO, Anagnou-Vareltzides A, Demetriou N. Calculus removal from multirooted teeth with and without surgical access. (I). Efficacy on external and furcation surfaces in relation to probing depth [J]. J Clin Periodontol, 1993, 20(1): 63-68.
[3] Paul TP, Emmatty R, Pulikkottil JJ, et al. Comparative evaluation of sustained release collagen device containing 5% metronidazole (metrogene) along with and without scaling and root planing at regular intervals with treatment of chronic periodontitis: a case control study [J]. J Int Oral Health, 2015, 7(6): 18-22.
[4] 胡琮佼, 尹元正, 管丹萍, 等. 喷砂与手器刮治清除龈下菌斑的效果比较 [J]. 上海口腔医学, 2015, 24(5): 602-606.
[5] Silva D, Martins O, Matos S, et al. Histological and profilometric evaluation of the root surface after instrumentation with a new piezoelectric device- ex vivo study[J]. Int J Dent Hyg, 2015, 13(2):138-144.
[6] Lea SC, Landini G, Walmsley AD. Vibration characteristics of ultrasonic scalers assessed with scanning laser vibrometry [J]. J Dent, 2002, 30(4):147-151.
[7] Busslinqer A, Lampe K, Beuchat M, et al. A comparative in vitro study of a magnetostrictive and a Piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling instrument [J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2001, 28(7): 642-649.
[8] Michaud RM, Schoolfield J, Mellonig JT, et al. The efficacy of subgingival calculus removal with endoscopy-aided scaling and root planing: a study on multirooted teeth [J]. J Periodontol, 2007, 78(12): 2238-2245.
[9] Choi YM, Lee JY, Choi J, et al. Effect of root planing on the reduction of probing depth and the gain of clinical attachment depending on the mode of interproximal bone resorption [J]. J Periodontal Implant Sci, 2015, 45(5): 184-189.
[10] Sugaya T, Kawanami M, Kato H. Accessibility of an ultrasonic furcation tip to furcation areas of mandibular first and second molars [J]. J Int Acad Periodontol, 2002, 4(4): 132-137.
[11] Arabaci T, Ciçek Y, Canakçi CF. Sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontal treatment: a review[J]. Int J Dent Hyg, 2007, 5(1): 2-12.
[12] Newman MG, Takei HH, Carranza FA. Carranza's clinical periodontology [M]. 9 th Ed. America: W.B. Saunders Company, 2002: 607-614.
[13] Chapple IL, Walmsley AD, Saxby MS, et al. Effect of instrument power setting during ultrasonic scaling upon treatment outcome [J]. J Periodontol, 1995, 66(9): 756-760.