中国现代医生
中國現代醫生
중국현대의생
CHINA MODERN DOCTOR
2014年
18期
157-159
,共3页
Er:YAG激光排龈法%排龈效果%牙周健康
Er:YAG激光排齦法%排齦效果%牙週健康
Er:YAG격광배간법%배간효과%아주건강
Er:YAG laser gingival extraction method%Gingival extraction effect%Periodontal health
目的：比较Er∶YAG激光排龈法和排龈线排龈法的排龈疗效。方法收集山西医科大学口腔医院修复科龈下边缘单冠修复患牙100颗，随机分为A、B两组各50颗，分别采用排龈线排龈法和Er∶YAG激光排龈法，对两组排龈效果的满意度评价及操作过程中感觉疼痛或不适的患者数进行比较；采用牙周出血指数(GBI)和牙周袋深度（PD）评价两种方法对牙周健康的影响。结果两组间牙预备体、印模和模型满意度均无统计学差异（P>0.05），B组牙龈止血效果明显优于A组（P<0.05）；B组疼痛患者比例（12%）少于A组（92%）（P<0.05）；两种方法治疗前与治疗后及两种方法之间GBI值、PD值比较差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论两种排龈法均可获得良好的排龈效果，Er∶YAG激光排龈法可减少牙龈出血，术中患者疼痛反应小，而且对牙周健康影响较小。
目的：比較Er∶YAG激光排齦法和排齦線排齦法的排齦療效。方法收集山西醫科大學口腔醫院脩複科齦下邊緣單冠脩複患牙100顆，隨機分為A、B兩組各50顆，分彆採用排齦線排齦法和Er∶YAG激光排齦法，對兩組排齦效果的滿意度評價及操作過程中感覺疼痛或不適的患者數進行比較；採用牙週齣血指數(GBI)和牙週袋深度（PD）評價兩種方法對牙週健康的影響。結果兩組間牙預備體、印模和模型滿意度均無統計學差異（P>0.05），B組牙齦止血效果明顯優于A組（P<0.05）；B組疼痛患者比例（12%）少于A組（92%）（P<0.05）；兩種方法治療前與治療後及兩種方法之間GBI值、PD值比較差異均有統計學意義（P<0.05）。結論兩種排齦法均可穫得良好的排齦效果，Er∶YAG激光排齦法可減少牙齦齣血，術中患者疼痛反應小，而且對牙週健康影響較小。
목적：비교Er∶YAG격광배간법화배간선배간법적배간료효。방법수집산서의과대학구강의원수복과간하변연단관수복환아100과，수궤분위A、B량조각50과，분별채용배간선배간법화Er∶YAG격광배간법，대량조배간효과적만의도평개급조작과정중감각동통혹불괄적환자수진행비교；채용아주출혈지수(GBI)화아주대심도（PD）평개량충방법대아주건강적영향。결과량조간아예비체、인모화모형만의도균무통계학차이（P>0.05），B조아간지혈효과명현우우A조（P<0.05）；B조동통환자비례（12%）소우A조（92%）（P<0.05）；량충방법치료전여치료후급량충방법지간GBI치、PD치비교차이균유통계학의의（P<0.05）。결론량충배간법균가획득량호적배간효과，Er∶YAG격광배간법가감소아간출혈，술중환자동통반응소，이차대아주건강영향교소。
Objective To compare the gingival retraction effect of Er:YAG laser gingival retraction method and gingival retraction cord. Methods One hundred teeth requiring sub-gingival margin single-crown restoration in Stomatological Hospital of Shanxi Medical University were selected and randomly assigned to Group A and Group B with 50 teeth in each group. Group A and Group B were given gingival retraction cord and Er:YAG laser gingival retraction method. The satisfaction evaluation on gingival retraction effects and the number of patients feeling pain or discomfort during opera-tion were compared between the two groups. Gingival bleeding index (GBI) and periodontal pocket depth (PD) were ap-plied to evaluate the impact of the two methods on periodontal health. Results The two groups had no statistical differ-ence with regard to tooth preparation, impression and model satisfaction (P>0.05). Group B had significantly better gin-gival hemostasis effects than Group A (P<0.05). Group B had fewer patients with pain (12%) than Group A (92%) (P<0.05). There was statistical difference with regard to GBI value and PD value before and after treatment for each method and between two methods(P<0.05). Conclusion Both gingival extraction methods can achieve excellent gingival extraction effects. Er:YAG laser gingival extraction method can reduce gingival bleeding, cause less pain on patients during operation, and have less impact on periodontal health.
