Er��YAG�������������������������ٴ�Ч���Ƚ��о�

目的比较Er:YAG激光排龈法和排龈线排龈法的临床效果。方法选择2010年6—8月到山西医科大学口腔医院口腔修复科就诊因美观要求或固位需要采用龈下边缘金属烤瓷单冠修复的36例患者的62颗患牙,随机分为两组:Ⅰ组采用排龈线排龈法,Ⅱ组采用Er:YAG激光排龈法。对两组的牙预备体、牙龈止血效果、印模和模型清晰程度以及1周后牙龈健康状况进行评价。使用数字分级法(NRS)调查患者的疼痛程度。结果两种排龈法获得的牙预备体、印模和模型满意度以及1周后牙龈健康状况差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),而牙龈止血效果满意度差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),Er:YAG激光排龈法牙龈止血效果优于排龈线排龈法。Er:YAG激光排龈法90.3%的患者无疼痛,而排龈线排龈法83.9%的患者有轻度疼痛。结论排龈线排龈法和Er:YAG激光排龈法均为较好的排龈方法。而在牙龈止血方面,Er:YAG激光排龈法明显优于排龈线排龈法。

Comparison study on clinical effect of gingival retraction cord and Er:YAG laser gingival retraction techniques

Objective To compare the effects of gingival retraction cord and Er：YAG laser gingival retraction technique, gingival health of the patients and painful reaction. Methods Totally 62 teeth in 36 patients were collected in clinic and randomly divided into two groups：one group was treated with gingival retraction cord, the other with Er：YAG laser. The situation of preparation, gingival hemostasis effect, impression, master cast, gingival health after a week and the painful reaction of restorations were comprehensively observed and evaluated between the two groups. Results These two kinds of gingival retraction techniques could both achieve satisfactory effects of preparation, impression, mas- ter cast and gingival health （P 〉 0.05）.But significant differences were showed in hemostasis effect （P 〈 0.05）. Over 90 percent patients of Er：YAG laser group felt no pain while 83.9 percent patients of gingival retraction cord group felt a little bit pain. Conclusion These two gingival retraction techniques are both preferable methods. But Er：YAG laser gingival retraction technique has shown significantly better quality in hemostasis effect than gingival retraction cord.