牙周牙髓联合病变的综合治疗效果观察

目的研究牙周牙髓综合治疗对下前牙牙周牙髓联合病变的疗效,以期为临床治疗提供依据。 方法收集2017年1月至2018年2月至广州市海珠区口腔医院就诊的31例下颌重度牙周炎伴牙髓病变前牙,给予牙周治疗（龈上洁治、龈下刮治及根面平整术）,根管治疗和松牙固定的综合治疗。记录患者基线、治疗后3个月、6个月、12个月的牙石指数（CI）、龈沟出血指数（SBI）、探诊深度（PD）、附着水平（AL）值,采用单因素重复测量资料方差分析统计数据（检验水准α = 0.05）,比较患牙治疗前、后差异,评价临床疗效。 结果31例患牙中,牙周牙髓联合治疗有效率为96.8%。患牙在术后3、6、12个月较基线相比,其CI、SBI、PD、AL值均显著下降,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.001）。术后6个月与3个月相比,PD、AL值继续下降,差异有统计学意义（F_PD = 112.51,P_PD<0.001;F_AL = 117.64,P_AL<0.001）;术后12个月较6个月仍持续降低,但差异无统计学意义（F_PD = 0.04,P_PD = 0.815;F_AL = 0.09,P_AL = 0.786）。 结论对于下前牙牙周牙髓联合病变,综合治疗效果显著。     

牙周治疗在牙周-牙髓联合病变中的应用效果评价

目的 评价牙周治疗在牙周-牙髓联合病变中的疗效。方法 选择109例牙周-牙髓病变患者（120颗患牙）,所有患牙均经完善的根管治疗,分为A、B 2组。A组为牙周治疗组（60颗患牙）,根管治疗完成2周后行牙周基础治疗;6周后仍有5 mm以上牙周袋且探诊后出血者,进行翻瓣术治疗。B组为非牙周治疗组（60颗患牙）,单纯行根管治疗和龈上洁治术。术后3、6、12、24个月进行随访,观察2组患者牙周探诊深度（PD）、牙槽骨吸收程度、牙松动度（TM）等的变化。采用SPSS 22.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果 A组术前、术后2年PD分别为（5.966±1.877）mm、（5.133±1.935)mm,牙周探诊深度减轻,有统计学差异。B组术前、术后2年PD分别为（5.533±1.856）mm、( 6.167±1.927)mm,牙周探诊深度显著增加。2组术前TM无统计学差异（P>0.05）。术后2年,A组TM显著低于B组（P<0.05）。X线表现,A组术后2年牙槽骨吸收较术前无显著变化（P>0.05）;B组术后2年,牙槽骨吸收较术前显著减轻（P<0.05）。结论 根管治疗结合牙周治疗用于牙周-牙髓联合病变能取得较好的疗效,值得推广应用。     

根管治疗对牙周源性牙周牙髓联合病变细菌谱的影响

目的:分析牙周源性牙周牙髓联合病变根管治疗前、后牙周微生物的差异,探讨根管治疗对牙周牙髓联合病变预后的影响.方法:收集2018～2020年新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院接诊的牙周源性牙周牙髓联合病变并发逆行性牙髓炎的患牙31例,采集根管治疗前、后牙周袋和根管治疗前根管内标本,提取DNA采用荧光定量PCR对福赛斯坦纳菌、牙龈卟啉单胞菌、具核梭杆菌、中间普氏菌、齿垢密螺旋体、消化性链球菌、粪肠球菌、牙髓卟啉单胞菌数量进行检测.结果:根管治疗后牙周袋内细菌数量较根管治疗前明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);其中牙髓卟啉单胞菌、中间普氏菌、牙龈卟啉单胞菌差异最明显.结论:牙周源性牙周牙髓联合病变以牙周可疑致病菌感染为主,完善的根管治疗术对牙周病引起的牙周牙髓联合病变的预后具有促进作用.     

松牙固定时机对下颌前牙牙周治疗结果的影响

目的探讨松牙固定时机对中国人群牙周治疗结果的影响。方法 27例中重度牙周炎患者,给予龈上洁治和口腔卫生宣教后随机分成两组。常规组14例,龈下刮治和根面平整完成后行百强固位纤维带粘接固定松动的下颌前牙;试验组13例,完成纤维带粘接固定后行龈下刮治和根面平整。基线、治疗后3个月和治疗后6个月分别评估简化口腔卫生指数、龈沟出血指数、探诊深度、牙周附着丧失4项临床参数,并对数据进行统计学分析。结果常规组和试验组自身前后比较,各组治疗后3个月牙周临床参数与基线时比较有明显改善（P〈0.01）,各组3个月与6个月临床参数变化不明显（P〉0.05）。两组间比较,基线到治疗后3个月和基线到治疗后6个月临床参数的变化,差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论龈下刮治和根面平整前或后行松牙固定对中国人群牙周治疗预后没有明显影响。     

半导体激光辅助治疗牙周牙髓联合病变的临床研究

目的评价应用半导体激光辅助治疗牙周牙髓联合病变的临床效果。方法选择牙周牙髓联合病变患者30例为研究对象,随机分为试验组和对照组,每组15例。对照组患牙进行根管治疗和牙周系统治疗,试验组患牙在进行根管治疗和牙周系统治疗基础上辅助半导体激光治疗。观测治疗前、治疗3个月后和治疗6个月后牙周探诊深度（PPD）、临床附着水平（CAL）、改良出血指数（mBI）、根尖周指数（PAI）等牙周牙髓临床指标的变化,评价半导体激光在辅助治疗牙周牙髓联合病变中的作用。结果治疗3个月后,试验组和对照组的PPD、CAL和mBI较治疗前均显著下降;试验组PPD下降值与对照组比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,试验组CAL和mBI的下降值与对照组比较差异无统计学意义。治疗6个月后,试验组PPD、CAL和mBI持续下降,对照组PPD、CAL和mBI与治疗3个月后无显著变化,试验组与对照组相比差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;2组PAI较治疗前均下降,但是与对照组相比差异无统计学意义。结论半导体激光辅助治疗牙周牙髓联合病变对于取得长期和稳定的疗效有一定作用,对病变中牙周组织损害的辅助治疗效果更为显著。     

牙周牙髓联合病变伴畸形根面沟治疗的临床疗效研究

目的:评价显微根管外科手术联合牙周治疗牙周牙髓联合病变伴畸形根面沟的治疗效果。方法:选择畸形根面沟致牙周牙髓联合病变的患牙11例,经显微根管治疗后,采用显微根管外科手术联合牙周治疗,分别记录患牙术前、术后6个月及术后1年牙周探诊深度(PD)、龈沟出血指数(SBI)、牙齿松动度(TM),并进行统计分析。所有患牙术后6个月及1年复查,通过临床检查和X线片评定根尖周病损愈合结果。结果:术后6月及术后1年分别与术前相比,PD、SBI及TM均明显降低(P<0.05);术后6月成功率为81.82%;术后1年成功率为90.91%。结论:显微根管外科手术联合牙周治疗是畸形根面沟致牙周牙髓联合病变的可行治疗方法。     

140例牙周-牙髓联合病变的治疗效果分析

目的观察综合治疗牙周-牙髓联合病变的治疗效果。方法将140例160颗牙周-牙髓联合病变患牙分成3组,A组在进行根管治疗的同时行牙周治疗,B组在进行根管治疗后2～3个月再行牙周治疗,C组只进行根管治疗。观察治疗后1年的临床疗效。结果治疗1年后,A组的临床疗效好于B组,但差异没有显著性(P>0.05);A、B组临床疗效均好于C组,差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论完善的根管治疗和及时的牙周系统治疗是牙周-牙髓联合病变治疗成功的有效手段,可以提高患牙的保存率。     

牙周牙髓联合治疗与单纯牙周治疗对重度牙周炎疗效的临床对比研究

目的 探索重度牙周炎牙齿的牙髓治疗时机及牙周牙髓联合治疗对重度牙周炎的疗效。方法 采用多中心研究方法,选择重度牙周炎患牙180颗,随机分为牙周牙髓联合治疗组（试验组）和单纯牙周治疗组（对照组）,各90颗患牙。对照组仅进行牙周治疗;试验组记录牙髓状态,行根管治疗及牙周治疗;两组分别在治疗前和治疗后1、3、6及12个月进行检查,记录临床指标。结果 试验组90颗患牙中,22颗牙髓完全坏死,45颗部分坏死（冠髓坏死或根髓部分坏死）,23颗为活髓。治疗前,对照组和试验组各项临床指标的差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）;治疗后3个月,试验组和对照组的临床指标开始出现差异（P<0.05）。结论 牙髓活力迟钝的重度牙周炎患牙及时进行完善的牙髓治疗,可控制炎症的发展,有利于牙周组织的愈合。     

200例牙周牙髓联合病变的临床诊疗观察

目的 研究牙周牙髓联合病变的治疗方法,探讨最佳的治疗方案。方法 牙周牙髓联合病变患者200例。根据病因分别行根管治疗、牙周治疗和综合治疗,并观察疗效。结果 治疗结束12个月后观察,单纯的病因治疗和综合治疗2组间比较有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论 牙周牙髓联合病变者采取综合治疗,能够取得良好的效果。?     

根管治疗术在牙周牙髓联合病变治疗中的应用

目的：探讨根管治疗术在牙周牙髓联合病变治疗中的重要性。方法：对235例356个牙周病引起牙周牙髓联合病变的患牙进行分级并分成2组，实验组采用根管治疗术和牙周系统治疗的联合治疗，对照组只采用牙周系统治疗。观察治疗后1年的临床疗效。结果：治疗1年后，实验组临床疗效好于对照组，有显著性差异（P〈0．01）。结论：根管治疗术的应用在牙周病引起的牙周牙髓联合病变的治疗中具有重要意义。     

缓释氯己定凝胶在慢性牙周炎治疗中的应用

目的:观察龈上洁治术、龈下刮治术和根面平整术(scaling and root planing,SRP)结合缓释氯己定凝胶(chlorhexidine,CHX)对慢性牙周炎的治疗作用。方法:选择35～65岁的慢性牙周炎患者36例,将后牙区牙周袋数目较多的单颌设定为实验组,对颌为对照组。实验组采取SRP+CHX治疗,对照组采取SRP治疗。分别于牙周治疗前、中、后3个阶段,记录每个受试牙近颊、颊侧、远颊、近舌、舌侧和远舌位点的牙龈指数(GI)、探诊出血(BOP)、探诊深度(PD)、临床附着水平(CAL)、探诊出血指数(SBI)。结果:BOP、SBI、PD、GI四项指标在治疗后1个月,实验组与对照组之间有显著差异(P<0.05),4个月后则无显著性差异(P>0.05)。CAL在治疗后1个月,两组间无显著(P>0.05),而4个月后差异显著性差异(P<0.05)。无论是实验组还是对照组,治疗前后各项牙周指标后牙区位点对治疗的反应明显不如前牙区,但无显著性差异(P>0.05)。PD>7 mm的深牙周袋,SRP+CHX组与SRP组之间4个月后仍有显著性差异。结论:在慢性牙周炎治疗过程中,SRP+CHX治疗能够改善牙周临床指标,尤其对PD>7 mm的深牙周袋有更好的治疗作用。     

阿奇霉素辅助Ⅲ/Ⅳ期牙周炎患者非手术治疗的临床疗效及其对唾液微生物群落的影响

目的 评价全身应用阿奇霉素辅助治疗对Ⅲ/Ⅳ期牙周炎患者非手术治疗的临床疗效及其对唾液微生物群落的影响。方法 纳入40例Ⅲ/Ⅳ期牙周炎患者作为研究对象,随机分为常规非手术治疗组(SRP组)和阿奇霉素辅助非手术治疗组(AZI组)。在基线、SRP后第3天和第6周3个时点进行临床检查和唾液采集。通过临床检查分析两组患者临床治疗效果;通过16S rRNA测序分析唾液微生物组,确定各分类单元丰富度、多样性和相对丰度的差异。结果 与基线相比,两组患者治疗后所有临床指数均显著改善(P<0.001)。与SRP组相比,在治疗后第3天和第6周,AZI组的临床附着丧失(clinical attachment loss,CAL)和探诊出血(bleeding on probing,BOP)的改善更显著(P<0.05),但探诊深度(probing depth,PD)的改善仅在治疗后第6周时更明显(P<0.05)。位点水平分层统计结果显示,AZI组治疗后位点水平牙周指标优于SRP组。AZI组治疗后所有α多样性指数均显著降低(P<0.05),而SRP组仅Sobs指数治疗后第3天有短暂降低。治疗后,两组乳杆菌菌群比例均有所增加,但AZI组较高。AZI组密螺旋体和梭杆菌比例显著降低(P<0.05);治疗后第3天,卟啉单胞菌的比例显著降低,普雷沃菌的比例显著增加(P<0.05),但在治疗后第6周,两者占比均回归接近基线水平(P>0.05)。结论 阿奇霉素结合常规的牙周非手术治疗,能改善Ⅲ/Ⅳ期牙周炎患者的临床治疗效果,改变其唾液微生物菌群的组成,抑制牙周红、橙复合体中的密螺旋体、梭杆菌和卟啉单胞菌。     

A 2-step non-surgical procedure and systemic antibiotics in the treatment of rapidly progressive periodontitis

BACKGROUND: In the last few years knowledge about periodontal infections has increased enormously, nevertheless practitioners are still seeking guidelines for suitable treatment concepts. METHODS: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of doxycycline, metronidazole, and clindamycin used adjunctively in a 2-step nonsurgical procedure in patients with rapidly progressive periodontitis (RPP). The first step included scaling, root planing, and polishing (SRP) in each quadrant using 4 to 5 visits. The second step included full-mouth enhanced root planing (RP) and wound dressing in 1 or 2 visits after SRP and the beginning of antibiotic therapy. Forty-eight patients (mean age 32.4 years) with generalized RPP, with an average of 16 sites with probing depths (PD) deeper than 8 mm, and high counts of Porphyromonas gingivalis were randomly assigned to 4 different groups: group 1 (doxycycline) n = 12, group 2 (metronidazole) n = 15, group 3 (clindamycin) n = 11, and group 4 (control group; no antibiotic treatment) n = 10. Clinical evaluations, including plaque index (PI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and bacteriological and crevicular cell sampling, were done at baseline (BL), 3 weeks after SRP, and 6 and 24 months after RP. RESULTS: After the first step (SRP), we observed an improvement of PI and SBI in all 4 groups, but did not see any statistically significant PD reduction 3 weeks after SRP compared to baseline. However, 6 and 24 months after the second step (RP) we observed a significantly greater reduction of PD in groups 2 and 3 and a significantly greater CAL gain in comparison to groups 1 and 4. After 24 months, the attachment level gain in group 1 and group 4 was less than 1.5 mm, and less than 1.0 mm in PD site categories 6 to 9 mm and >9 mm. PI showed no significant difference between the groups throughout the period after SRP until 24 months, compared to 3 weeks after SRP. SBI decreased most in the metronidazole and clindamycin groups. P. gingivalis and Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans were almost completely eradicated in these 2 groups 24 months after RP. In addition, the phagocytotic capacity of crevicular polymorphonuclear neutrophils was increased in groups 2 and 3 after the second step. CONCLUSIONS: The present results show that metronidazole and clindamycin are effective antibiotics when used adjunctively in a 2-step nonsurgical procedure of scaling and root planing in RPP patients.     

内窥镜辅助下微创牙周基础治疗的临床疗效评价

目的 探讨牙周内窥镜辅助下超声龈下刮治及根面平整(subgingival scaling and root planning,SRP)对重度牙周炎治疗的临床疗效.方法 选取2017年6月至2019年1月于南京大学医学院附属口腔医院就诊的Ⅲ-Ⅳ期牙周炎患者19例,随机分为内窥镜组及对照组.内窥镜组在龈上洁治术1周后,牙周...     

牙周基础治疗后维持期菌斑控制的效果观察

目的　评价菌斑控制预防牙周疾病的效果。方法　随机选择 4 0例牙周疾病患者 ,分为菌斑控制组 (2 3例 )及对照组 (17例 )。于全口洁治、刮治和根面平整 (SRP)后 2周 (基线 )、基线后 12、2 4、4 8周检测菌斑指数 (PLI)、龈沟出血指数 (SBI)、探诊深度 (PD)及临床附着丧失 (CAL)。结果　菌斑控制组基线后 12、2 4、4 8周时PLI、SBI、PD显著低于对照组 (P <0 .0 5 ) ,菌斑控制组基线后 4 8周时CAL显著低于对照组 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论　菌斑控制能够有效地预防牙周疾病的发生、发展。     

牙周内镜辅助牙周非手术治疗对牙龈退缩的影响

目的: 探讨牙周内镜辅助超声龈下刮治及根面平整术（scaling and root planing,SRP）对上颌侧切牙唇侧牙龈退缩的影响。方法: 从2020年6月—12月就诊于上海市普陀区眼病牙病防治所牙周病科的患者中收集36例中、重度慢性牙周炎患者作为受试者。采用单盲随机分口自身对照设计方案,先行全口超声龈上洁治术,2周后随机确定一侧上颌侧切牙行牙周内镜辅助下SRP（内镜组）,对侧侧切牙行常规SRP（ SRP组）作为对照,术后菌斑控制,记录基线、3个月和6个月时上颌侧切牙唇侧近中、中和远中3个位点的牙周探诊深度（PD）、附着丧失（AL）、牙龈退缩（GR）。采用SPSS 22.0软件包对2组治疗前后各项指标差异进行统计学分析。结果: 基线时内镜组和SRP组相比,各临床指标无显著差异。3个月时,内镜组的牙龈退缩量（ΔGR）显著小于SRP组（P<0.05）;3个月和6个月时,2组间的其他指标比较均无显著差异。与SRP组相比,内镜组PD的减少程度与AL的增加程度有更大趋势,治疗后3个月最明显。与基线相比,2组3个月和6个月时,PD、AL均有显著差异;实验组PD在3个月和6月个时相比,也有显著差异。3个月和6个月时相比,2组ΔGR均存在显著差异。结论: 牙周内镜辅助SRP清创彻底,创伤小,3个月时上颌侧切牙唇侧牙龈退缩减少量较常规SRP更少,美学效果优势凸显。     

Adjunctive Non‐Surgical Therapy of Inflamed Periodontal Pockets During Maintenance Therapy Using Diode Laser: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Numerous studies have documented the clinical outcomes of laser therapy for untreated periodontitis, but very few have reported on lasers treating inflamed pockets during maintenance therapy. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of scaling and root planing (SRP) plus the adjunctive use of diode laser therapy to SRP alone on changes in the clinical parameters of disease and on the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) inflammatory mediator interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β) in patients receiving regular periodontal maintenance therapy. Methods: This single‐masked and randomized, controlled, prospective study includes 22 patients receiving regular periodontal maintenance therapy who had one or more periodontal sites with a probing depth (PD) ≥5 mm with bleeding on probing (BOP). Fifty‐six sites were treated with SRP and adjunctive laser therapy (SRP + L). Fifty‐eight sites were treated with SRP alone. Clinical parameters, including PD, clinical attachment level (CAL), and BOP, and GCF IL‐1β levels were measured immediately before treatment (baseline) and 3 months after treatment. Results: Sites treated with SRP + L and SRP alone resulted in statistically significant reductions in PD and BOP and gains in CAL. These changes were not significantly different between the two therapies. Similarly, differences in GCF IL‐1β levels between SRP + L and SRP alone were not statistically significant. Conclusion: In periodontal maintenance patients, SRP + L did not enhance clinical outcomes compared to SRP alone in the treatment of inflamed sites with ≥5 mm PD.     

The effect of subgingival controlled-release delivery of chlorhexidine chip on clinical parameters and matrix metalloproteinase-8 levels in gingival crevicular fluid

BACKGROUND: The present study evaluated the efficacy of controlled-release delivery of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) on clinical parameters and on gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-8 levels in chronic periodontitis patients. METHODS: Twenty patients with chronic periodontitis were screened for 6 months. Two interproximal sites were selected from mesial surfaces of anterior teeth with probing depths of 6 to 8 mm that bled on probing in each patient. There were at least 2 teeth between the selected sites. CHX chip was inserted into a randomly selected site following scaling and root planing (SRP+CHX), while the other selected site received only SRP in each patient. Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI), and papilla bleeding index (PBI) were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months. GCF MMP-8 levels were analyzed at baseline; 2 and 10 days; and at 1, 3, and 6 months by immunofluorometric assay (IFMA). RESULTS: At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences in the mean PD, CAL, PBI, and PI scores between SRP+CHX and SRP alone groups. At 1, 3, and 6 months, all clinical parameters in each group significantly decreased (P <0.0167) when compared to baseline. The reduction of PD and improvement in CAL were higher in the SRP+CHX group compared to SRP alone at 3 and 6 months. However, the differences between the 2 groups were not statistically significant. PBI and PI scores were not significantly different between SRP+CHX and SRP alone groups at any visit. GCF MMP-8 levels were similar in both groups at baseline. Intragroup analysis showed significant decreases in the GCF MMP-8 level for the SRP+CHX group between baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months (P<0.01). Intergroup analysis demonstrated significantly lower mean levels of GCF MMP-8 at 1 month in the SRP+CHX group compared to the SRP alone group (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that CHX chip application following SRP is beneficial in improving periodontal parameters and reducing GCF MMP-8 levels for 6 months' duration. The use of a chairside MMP-8 dipstick periodontitis test might be a useful adjunctive diagnostic tool when monitoring the course of CHX chip treatment.