口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (7): 612-616.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2021.07.008

• 口腔种植学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

种植体打磨抛光联合Er:YAG激光对种植体周围炎的长期临床疗效

杨春山1, 徐巍1, 刘颖1, 樊哲1, 孟琪1, 杨春江1, 郑佳2*   

  1. 1.唐山市协和医院口腔科 河北 唐山 063000;
    2.唐山职业技术学院临床医学系 河北 唐山 063000
  • 收稿日期:2021-01-25 出版日期:2021-07-28 发布日期:2021-07-13
  • 通讯作者: * 郑佳,E-mail:47050562@qq.com
  • 作者简介:杨春山(1980~ ),男,河北唐山人,副主任医师,本科,研究方向:种植体周围炎的预防与治疗。

Long-term Clinical Effect of Implantoplasty Combined with Er:YAG Laser on Peri-implantitis

YANG Chunshan1, XU Wei1, LIU Ying1, FAN Zhe1, MENG Qi1, YANG Chunjiang1, ZHENG Jia2*   

  1. 1. Tangshan Union Medical College Hospital, Tangshan 063000, China;
    2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Tangshan Vocational and Technical College, Tangshan 063000, China
  • Received:2021-01-25 Online:2021-07-28 Published:2021-07-13

PDF (PC)

289

摘要： 目的:评价种植体表面打磨抛光技术联合Er:YAG激光治疗种植体周围炎的长期临床疗效。方法:选取2015年1月~2017年1月在唐山市协和医院口腔科行牙种植且诊断为种植体周围炎的114例患者(120颗种植体,均为磨牙,采用瑞士ITI种植体)作为研究对象。将患者随机分为3组(每组40颗种植体),其中A组患者的种植体采用种植体打磨抛光和Er:YAG激光联合治疗,B组患者的种植体采用种植体打磨抛光技术治疗,C组患者的种植体采用Er:YAG激光治疗。评价、记录和比较3组患者治疗前和治疗后1、6、12和36个月的种植体菌斑指数(PLI)、龈沟出血指数(SBI)、牙周探诊深度(PD),以及患者术中疼痛程度。结果:3组患者经不同方法治疗后,同组间PLI、SBI和PD均得到明显改善。治疗36个月后,不同组间PLI、SBI和PD改善情况比较,A组显著优于B组和C组,且B组与C组之间无明显差异。此外,3组患者在不同方法治疗时均发生术中疼痛,且C组治疗时术中疼痛发生率显著低于A、B两组,但A、B两组间无明显差异。结论:种植体表面打磨抛光技术联合Er:YAG激光治疗种植体周围炎比单独应用种植表面打磨抛光技术或Er:YAG激光对种植体周围炎的长期临床疗效更好。

关键词: 种植体打磨抛光, Er:YAG激光, 联合治疗, 种植体周围炎

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the long-term clinical efficacy of implantoplasty combined with Er:YAG laser in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Methods: From January 2015 to January 2017, 114 patients which diagnosed as peri-implantitis were selected from the Department of Stomatology, Tangshan Union Medical College Hospital, including 120 implants (molar, using the Switzerland ITI implant). The patients were randomly divided into three groups (40 implants in each group), in which the implants of group A were treated with the combination of implantoplasty and Er:YAG laser, the implants of group B were treated with the implantoplasty, and the implants of group C were treated with Er:YAG laser. The implant plaque index (PLI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI), periodontal probing depth (PD), and intraoperative pain of patients in the three groups before and 1, 6, 12, and 36 months after treatment were evaluated, recorded, and compared. Results: After different treatments, PLI, SBI, and PD in the three groups were significantly improved. After 36 months treatment, the improvement of PLI, SBI, and PD in group A was significantly better than those in group B and group C, and there was no significant difference between group B and group C. In addition, intraoperative pain occurred in all three groups, and the incidence of intraoperative pain in group C was significantly lower than those in group A and group B, but there was no significant difference between groups A and B. Conclusion: The long-term clinical effect of the surface implantoplasty combined with Er:YAG laser on peri-implantitis is better than that of the single application of implantoplasty or Er:YAG laser.

Key words: implantoplasty, Er:YAG laser, combination therapy, peri-implantitis