固齿胶囊结合牙周基础治疗在重度牙周炎治疗中的效果

The effects of Guchi Capsules combined with periodontal non-surgical treatment in severe periodontitis

目的 观察固齿胶囊结合牙周基础治疗治疗重度牙周炎的临床效果.方法 将2012年12月～2013年12月来第四军医大学口腔医院牙周科就诊的123例牙周病患者分为两组：中西医结合治疗组61例,采用中西医结合治疗;牙周系统治疗组62例,进行牙周系统治疗,疗程结束后分别从中医症候疗效和牙周临床指标,如出血指数（BI）、探诊深度（PD）、牙周附着丧失（AL）及其牙槽骨平均灰度值（MGVs）等几个方面观察比较两组之间以及治疗前后临床疗效.结果 中西医结合组总有效率为95.1％,牙周系统治疗组总有效率为50.0％,两组总有效率比较,差异有高度统计学意义（P＜0.01）,中西医结合治疗组临床疗效优于牙周系统治疗组.牙周临床指标统计结果显示,术后3个月,牙周系统治疗组及中西医结合治疗组的PD值分别为（3.30±0.90）、（3.60±0.70）mm,BI分别为（2.05±0.23）、（1.97±0.51）,较治疗前均有明显下降[PD值：（6.46±1.09）、（6.72±0.84）mm,BI分别为（3.43±0.47）、（3.47±0.86）],差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.牙周系统治疗组MGVs为（110.06±34.74）,与治疗前（105.89±30.25）比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;中西医结合治疗组MGVs为（122.73±26.91）,较治疗前（109.17±28.24）显著升高,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;两组PAL值治疗前与治疗后3个月比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞ 0.05）.中西医结合治疗组的MGVs改善较牙周系统治疗组更为明显,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,而BI、PD、PAL值两组间差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.术后6个月,中西医结合治疗组与牙周系统治疗组与治疗前比较,结果与术后3个月情况相同,而两组间比较发现,牙周系统治疗组PAL为（5.42±1.04）mm,中西医结合治疗组为（5.12±0.79）mm,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;牙周系统治疗组BI为（2.22±0.36）,中西医结合治疗组为（1.91±0.19）,牙周系统治疗组PD为（4.07±0.62）mm,中西医结合治疗组为（3.49±0.87）mm,牙周系统治疗组MGVs为（115.22±21.36）,中西医结合治疗组为（124.14±23.17）,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,提示中西医结合治疗组优于牙周系统治疗组.结论 中西医结合治疗重度牙周炎的效果优于牙周系统治疗.

Objective To observe the therapeutic effects of severe periodontitis treated by Guchi Capsules combined with periodontal non-surgical treatment. Methods 123 patients with severe periodontitis were divided into two groups. At first the cases in two groups were given basic periodontitis treatment, then the patients in combine traditional Chi- nese and western medicine treatment group （n=61） were given Guchi Capsules combined with periodontal systematic treatments, the cases in periodontal systemly treatment group （n=62） were treated with periodontal systematic treat- ments only. After the treatments, the effects of two grouDs were evaluated and compared bv svmntnmatic efficacy ofChinese medicine, periodontal comprehensive curativeeffect and periodontal clinical index, such as bleeding index （BI）, probing depth （PD）, periodontal attachment loss （PAL） and mean grey values （MGVs） of the alveolar bone of all teeth which were selected, were measured before and 3 months, 6 months after treatments. Results The total effective rate in combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treat- ment group was 95.1%, which was superior to that in periodontal systemly treatment group （50.0%）, with significant dif- ference （P 〈 0.01）, while the effect in combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treatment group was better than periodontal systemly treatment group. 3 months after treatment, the PD and BI in combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treatment group and periodontal systemly treatment group were （3.30±0.90）, （3.60±0.70） ram, BI were （2.05±0.23）, （1.97±0.51）, in both of the groups they decreased more than before significantly [PD： （6.46±1.09）, （6.72±0.84） mm, BI： （3.43_＋0.47）, （3.47＋0.86）, P 〈 0.05]. MGVs in combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treatment group was （110.06±34.74）, which increased more significantly than before （105.89±30.25）, with no significant difference （P 〉 0.05）. MGVs in periodontal systemly treatment group was （122.73±26.91）, which increased more significantly than before （109.17±28.24）, with significant difference （P 〈 0.05）. PAL in combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treatment group and periodontal systemly treatment group before and after treatment for 3 months had no significant dif- ference （P 〉 0.05）. The MGVs in combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treatment group showed better change than those in the periodontal systemly treatment group periodontal systemly treatment group （P 〈 0.05）, while the BI, PD and PAL had not significant differences between the two groups （P 〉 0.05）. 6 months after treatment, the re- sults in both the combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treatment group and periodontal systemly treatment group were similar with those of 3 months after treatment, while the PAL in periodontal systemly treatment group was （5.42±1.04） mm, and was （5.12±0.79） mm in combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treatment group, with no significant difference （P 〉 0.05）. BI in periodontal systemly treatment group was （2.22±0.36）, and was （1.91±0.19） in combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treatment group, PD in periodontal systemly treatment group was （4.07±0.62） mm, and was （3.49±0.87） mm in combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treatment group, MGVs in periodontal systemly treatment group was （115.22±21.36）, and was （124.14±23.17） in combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treatment group, there were significant differences between two groups （all P 〈 0.05）, which prompted that, combine traditional Chinese and western medicine treatment group had better effect than periodontal systemly treatment group. Conclusion The effect of Guchi Capsules combined with periodontal non-surgical treatment is better than that of periodontal systematic treatments only on the treatment of severe periodontitis.