中华健康管理学杂志
中華健康管理學雜誌
중화건강관이학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF HEALTH MANAGEMENT
2015年
2期
102-107
,共6页
栗洪师%李冬霞%冯岩%臧晓霞
慄洪師%李鼕霞%馮巖%臧曉霞
률홍사%리동하%풍암%장효하
老年人%牙种植,骨内,牙髓%牙槽骨质丢失%健康管理
老年人%牙種植,骨內,牙髓%牙槽骨質丟失%健康管理
노년인%아충식,골내,아수%아조골질주실%건강관리
Aged%Dental implantation,endosseous,endodontic%Alveolar bone loss%Health mamagement
目的:探讨口腔健康管理对于老年人围种植手术调节作用和种植修复负载后种植体周围边缘骨稳定性的影响。方法37名老年上颌后磨牙区后天性牙缺失患者,excel表格随机值降序随机法分为口腔健康管理组[n=18,平均年龄(65.22±5.38)岁]和对照组[n=19,平均年龄(63.74±6.69)岁],口腔健康管理组围绕种植牙修复负载前后时间周期,应用图像说明,模型示教、手术演示等口腔健康管理方法,使患者明确口腔健康管理对于口腔种植手术重要性并且达到知行合一;对照组患者接受围种植手术常规指导。比较两组围种植体手术血压、心率差变化,检测种植负载后种植体边缘牙槽骨吸收(MBL)状况,记录负载后相同时间点种植体周围改良菌斑指数(mPLI)、改良出血指数(mSBI)和探诊深度(PD);统计学分析两组间差异。结果和对照组比较,口腔健康管理组种植术前完成程序健康指导方案前后,术中患者舒张压差值[(8.86±0.31)mmHg](1 mmHg=0.133 kPa)、收缩压差值[(19.18±0.22)mmHg]和心率变化差值[(11.23±0.19)次/min],均小于对照组[(16.55±1.08)mmHg,(28.31±2.30) mmHg),(20.19±1.84)次/min](P<0.05或0.01);负载12个月时口腔健康管理组种植体周围mPLI和mSBI分别为2.6(2,4)、2.1(2,4),均低于对照组[4.3(3,7)、4.3(3,7)](P<0.01)。结论科学有效的口腔健康管理方法有利于安全顺利地完成老年人种植牙手术,术后保护种植牙周围软硬组织健康,且能促进老年种植牙负载后周围牙槽骨的长期稳定性。
目的:探討口腔健康管理對于老年人圍種植手術調節作用和種植脩複負載後種植體週圍邊緣骨穩定性的影響。方法37名老年上頜後磨牙區後天性牙缺失患者,excel錶格隨機值降序隨機法分為口腔健康管理組[n=18,平均年齡(65.22±5.38)歲]和對照組[n=19,平均年齡(63.74±6.69)歲],口腔健康管理組圍繞種植牙脩複負載前後時間週期,應用圖像說明,模型示教、手術縯示等口腔健康管理方法,使患者明確口腔健康管理對于口腔種植手術重要性併且達到知行閤一;對照組患者接受圍種植手術常規指導。比較兩組圍種植體手術血壓、心率差變化,檢測種植負載後種植體邊緣牙槽骨吸收(MBL)狀況,記錄負載後相同時間點種植體週圍改良菌斑指數(mPLI)、改良齣血指數(mSBI)和探診深度(PD);統計學分析兩組間差異。結果和對照組比較,口腔健康管理組種植術前完成程序健康指導方案前後,術中患者舒張壓差值[(8.86±0.31)mmHg](1 mmHg=0.133 kPa)、收縮壓差值[(19.18±0.22)mmHg]和心率變化差值[(11.23±0.19)次/min],均小于對照組[(16.55±1.08)mmHg,(28.31±2.30) mmHg),(20.19±1.84)次/min](P<0.05或0.01);負載12箇月時口腔健康管理組種植體週圍mPLI和mSBI分彆為2.6(2,4)、2.1(2,4),均低于對照組[4.3(3,7)、4.3(3,7)](P<0.01)。結論科學有效的口腔健康管理方法有利于安全順利地完成老年人種植牙手術,術後保護種植牙週圍軟硬組織健康,且能促進老年種植牙負載後週圍牙槽骨的長期穩定性。
목적:탐토구강건강관리대우노년인위충식수술조절작용화충식수복부재후충식체주위변연골은정성적영향。방법37명노년상합후마아구후천성아결실환자,excel표격수궤치강서수궤법분위구강건강관리조[n=18,평균년령(65.22±5.38)세]화대조조[n=19,평균년령(63.74±6.69)세],구강건강관리조위요충식아수복부재전후시간주기,응용도상설명,모형시교、수술연시등구강건강관리방법,사환자명학구강건강관리대우구강충식수술중요성병차체도지행합일;대조조환자접수위충식수술상규지도。비교량조위충식체수술혈압、심솔차변화,검측충식부재후충식체변연아조골흡수(MBL)상황,기록부재후상동시간점충식체주위개량균반지수(mPLI)、개량출혈지수(mSBI)화탐진심도(PD);통계학분석량조간차이。결과화대조조비교,구강건강관리조충식술전완성정서건강지도방안전후,술중환자서장압차치[(8.86±0.31)mmHg](1 mmHg=0.133 kPa)、수축압차치[(19.18±0.22)mmHg]화심솔변화차치[(11.23±0.19)차/min],균소우대조조[(16.55±1.08)mmHg,(28.31±2.30) mmHg),(20.19±1.84)차/min](P<0.05혹0.01);부재12개월시구강건강관리조충식체주위mPLI화mSBI분별위2.6(2,4)、2.1(2,4),균저우대조조[4.3(3,7)、4.3(3,7)](P<0.01)。결론과학유효적구강건강관리방법유리우안전순리지완성노년인충식아수술,술후보호충식아주위연경조직건강,차능촉진노년충식아부재후주위아조골적장기은정성。
Objective To evaluate the effects of health management of stomatology on the marginal bone resorption of minimally invasive implant in the elderly.Method Tottally 54 implants were placed in 37 elderly patients of missing teeth in maxillary molar areas and the patients were randomly divided into health management group and control group.Patients in the group of health management were guided to master the proper techniques of oral hygiene practices before and after the implantation and periodontal maintenance were carried out carefully until 1 year after loading of restoration.In the control group, oral hygiene was applied. X-ray and CBCT examinations were made and implant marginal alveolar bone loss (MBL) was measured 3, 6, 9, 12 months after loading with Planmeca PROMAX3D software. Besides, 3, 6, 9, 12 months after loading, improved plaque index (iPLI), modified bleeding index (mBI) and probing depth (PD) were also recorded. SPSS 15.0 was applied to analyze the data. Result Differences in diastolic and systolic blood pressure and changes in heart rate in patients during the intraoperative period were (8.86 ± 0.31) mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa), (19.18 ± 0.22) mmHg, (20.19 ± 1.84) times/min, which were significantly lower than those of the control group values [(16.55±1.08) mmHg, (28.31±2.30) mmHg, (20.19±1.84) times/min] (P<0.05 or 0.01);at 12 months after the load around the implant in oral health management group, the values of MBL and mSBI were 2.6 (2, 4), 2.1 (2, 4), which were significantly better than control group [4.3(3, 7), 4.3(3, 7)] (P<0.01);simultaneously, there was significant difference in the values of MBL and PD between experimental group (1.42 ± 0.03, 0.77 ± 0.24) and control group (1.59 ± 0.04, 0.54 ± 0.17) (P<0.01). Conclusion Well-performed health management of peri-implant could reduce the MBL and keep healthy soft tissue environment around implants.