口腔医学研究 ›› 2024, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (1): 56-60.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2024.01.011

• 口腔种植学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

Er:YAG激光与甘氨酸龈下喷砂治疗种植体周炎短期临床疗效的随机对照研究

郑泽君1,2, 张颖1, 孙金梦1, 魏亚楠1, 丁晓玲3*, 丁刚1,2*   

  1. 1.山东第二医科大学口腔医学院 山东 潍坊 261053;
    2.山东第二医科大学附属医院口腔科 山东 潍坊 261041;
    3.山东第二医科大学临床能力培训中心 山东 潍坊 261053
  • 收稿日期:2023-07-24 出版日期:2024-01-28 发布日期:2024-01-22
  • 通讯作者: *丁晓玲,E-mail:wfyxydxl@ 163.com 丁刚,E-mail:dinggang@wfmc.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:郑泽君(1994~ ),男,山东烟台人,硕士在读,研究方向:口腔种植学。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金面上项目(编号:81570945)山东省自然科学基金面上项目(编号:ZR2021MH051)

Randomized Controlled Study on Short-term Clinical Effects of Er:YAG Laser Versus Subgingival Glycine Air Polishing in Treatment of Peri-implantitis

ZHENG Zejun1,2, ZHANG Ying1, SUN Jinmeng1, WEI Yanan1, DING Xiaoling3*, DING Gang1,2*   

  1. 1. School of Stomatology, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang 261053, China;
    2. Department of Stomatology, Affiliated Hospital of Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang 261041, China;
    3. Clinical Competency Training Center, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang 261053, China
  • Received:2023-07-24 Online:2024-01-28 Published:2024-01-22

摘要: 目的:对比Er:YAG激光与甘氨酸龈下喷砂治疗(subgingival glycine air polishing, GPAP)种植体周炎短期临床效果,为在临床治疗种植体周炎时选择治疗方案提供参考依据。方法:选择自2020年8月~2022年1月期间发生种植体周炎的38例患者为研究对象。使用随机数表法将其分为Er:YAG激光组(A组)和GPAP组(B组),由不知分组情况的相同医生行超声刮治,之后A组采用Er:YAG激光治疗,B组使用GPAP治疗,记录并评估治疗前以及治疗后6个月时的平均探诊深度(mean probing depth, MPD)、探诊出血指数(bleeding on probing,BOP)、临床附着丧失(clinical attachment lost,CAL)这3项临床指标。采用IBM SPSS Statistic 25.0对数据进行统计学分析。结果:A、B两组在术后6个月的MPD、BOP指数较基线水平均明显降低(P<0.05),A组较B组效果更佳[(1.98±0.34) mm vs. (2.43±0.51) mm;0.68±0.75 vs. 1.21±0.71;P<0.05],A组经治疗后CAL指标显著降低[(2.10±0.39) mm vs. (1.21±0.27) mm;P<0.001],B组经治疗后CAL无明显改善(P>0.05)。结论:Er:YAG激光治疗相较于GPAP治疗种植体周围软组织炎症效果更为显著,经Er:YAG激光治疗的患者在6个月的观察时间内恢复了部分丧失的骨组织。

关键词: 种植牙, 种植体周炎, Er:YAG激光, 甘氨酸龈下喷砂

Abstract: Objective: To compare the short-term clinical effects of Er:YAG laser and subgingival glycine air polishing (GPAP) in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Methods: A total of 38 patients with peri-implantitis from August 2020 to January 2022 were selected as the study subjects. They were divided into Er:YAG laser group (Group A) and GPAP group (Group B) by random number table method. Ultrasound subgingival scaling was performed by the same doctor who did not know the grouping condition. Then, Group A was treated with Er:YAG laser, and Group B was treated with GPAP. The mean probing depth (MPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and clinical attachment loss (CAL) were examined. Results: In contrast to baseline level, the MPD and BOP indexes in Group A and Group B were significantly lowered 6 months after operation (P<0.05), and the effect of Group A was better than that of Group B [(1.98±0.34) mm vs. (2.43±0.51) mm;0.68±0.75 vs. 1.21±0.71;P<0.05]. The CAL index was significantly reduced in Group A after treatment [(2.10±0.39) mm vs. (1.21±0.27) mm; P<0.001], however, no significant improvement in Group B after treatment (P>0.05). Conclusion: Er:YAG laser treatment was more effective than GPAP in treating peri-implant soft tissue inflammation, and patients treated with Er:YAG laser recovered the lost bone tissue to some extent within an observation period of 6 months.

Key words: implant teeth, peri-implantitis, Er: YAG laser, subgingival glycine air polishing