上海口腔医学

上海口腔医学 ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (4): 418-422.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2022.04.016

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

Er:YAG激光联合引导骨再生治疗种植体周围炎伴骨缺损效果评价

涂慧娟, 李凌宇, 李医丹, 罗真兰, 俞明   

  1. 上海市嘉定区牙病防治所 口腔综合科,上海 201800
  • 收稿日期:2021-11-21 修回日期:2022-01-23 出版日期:2022-08-25 发布日期:2022-08-30
  • 通讯作者: 俞明,E-mail：davyym@sina.com
  • 作者简介:涂慧娟（1983-）,女,硕士,主治医师,E-mail：blueairsea@sina.com
  • 基金资助:
    上海市嘉定区科委基金项目（JDKW-2019-W31）

Evaluation of the effect of Er:YAG laser combined with guided bone regeneration in the treatment of peri-implantitis with osseous defects

TU Hui-juan, LI Ling-yu, LI Yi-dan, LUO Zhen-lan, YU Ming   

  1. Department of General Dentistry, Dental Diseases Prevention & Treatment Center of Jiading District. Shanghai 201800, China
  • Received:2021-11-21 Revised:2022-01-23 Online:2022-08-25 Published:2022-08-30

PDF (PC)

205

摘要： 目的: 探讨Er:YAG激光联合引导骨再生（guided bone regeneration,GBR）治疗种植体周围炎伴骨缺损的临床效果。方法: 选择2017—2019年在嘉定区牙病防治所行种植修复且诊断为种植体周围炎伴骨缺损的26例患者（共34颗种植体）作为研究对象,随机分为实验组和对照组。2组均接受翻瓣、清创和GBR治疗,实验组采用Er:YAG激光处理种植体表面及污染物,对照组采用传统机械法处理。记录和比较2组患者治疗前和治疗后6、12和24个月的探诊深度（probing depth,PD）、探诊出血指数（bleeding on probing,BOP）、菌斑指数（plaque index,PI）、种植体周围边缘骨缺损高度（reduce of marginal bone level,RBL）,采用SPSS 20.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果: 2组患者经不同方法治疗后,PD、BOP、PI和RBL均显著改善;治疗后6、12和24个月后,PD、BOP和PI改善无统计学差异;治疗后12和24个月,实验组RBL改善显著优于对照组。结论: 在种植体周围炎伴骨缺损的GBR治疗中,Er:YAG激光疗法效果优于传统机械法,更有利于新骨再生。

关键词: Er:YAG激光, 种植体周围炎, 引导骨再生, 骨缺损

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical benefits of Er:YAG laser combined with guided bone regeneration (GBR) in the treatment of peri-implantitis-assocaited osseous defects. METHODS: Twenty-six patients (34 implants in total) who underwent implant restoration in Dental Disease Prevention and Treatment Institute, Jiading District, from 2017 to 2019 and were diagnosed with peri-implantitis with osseous defects, and randomly divided into the experimental group and control group. The two groups of patients received open flap surgery, debridement and GBR treatment. The only difference in the experimental group was the use of Er: YAG laser to modulate and remove inflammatory tissue as well as to decontaminate the implant surface, instead of traditional mechanical treatment in the control group. The probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and plaque index (PI), the height of the bone defect around the implant (reduce of marginal bone level, RBL) were recorded and compared. SPSS 20.0 software package was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The PD, BOP, PI and RBL of the two groups of patients were significantly improved after treatment with different methods. There was no significant difference in the improvement of PD, BOP and PI between the two groups 6, 12 and 24 months after treatment, while the improvement of RBL in the experimental group was significantly better than that of the control group 12 and 24 months after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of GBR with peri-implantitis and osseous defects, Er: YAG laser therapy is more effective than traditional mechanical methods, and is more conducive to the regeneration of new bone.

Key words: Er:YAG laser, Peri-implantitis, Guided bone regeneration(GBR), Osseous defects

中图分类号: