常用龈下刮治器械对磨牙根面刮治效率的比较

Efficacy of subgingival scaling of the molars with conventional scalers in vitro

目的 :比较压电式、磁伸缩式超声龈下刮治器及龈下手工器械3种临床常用龈下刮治器对磨牙根面的刮治效率,研究牙周袋深度及超声功率设定大小对超声器械龈下刮治效率的影响。方法:分别以压电式、磁伸缩式超声龈下刮治器械和龈下刮治手工器械在2 min内对30例实验根面进行5或7 mm袋深、全功率或半功率设置的模拟龈下刮治,比较不同器械间的根面刮治效率。采用SAS6.12软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果:不同参数设定下超声器械的刮治残留率均小于手工器械,全功率、5 mm袋深下磁伸缩式刮治残留率显著小于压电式(P<0.01);而7 mm袋深则压电式刮治残留率显著小于磁伸缩式;半功率、5 mm袋深下压电式与磁伸缩式无显著差异(P=0.217);而7 mm袋深时压电式、磁伸缩式与手工器械3者均无显著差异(P=0.574);7 mm袋深时的刮治残留率均显著高于5 mm袋深时(P<0.01);功率设定不同对于压电式或磁伸缩式超声器械的刮治影响均不显著。结论:超声龈下器械的刮治效率优于手工器械,3种器械的刮治效率均随牙周袋深度增加而下降。压电式与磁伸缩式器械无显著差异。超声龈下刮治器械的半功率设置对刮治效率的影响并不显著。

PURPOSE： To evaluate the efficacy of traditional manual scaling and piezoelectric and magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaling in regard to periodontal pocket depth and power setting. METHODS： Thirty extracted human molars were assigned to receive manual scaling or ultrasonic scaling （both on the full or half power setting） with probing depth of 5 and 7 mm for 2 min. The remained oil materials on the roots were calculated as supplementary data. The data were compared using SAS6.12 software package. RESULTS： The procedures of ultrasonic scaling resulted in reductions of the values than manual scaling in all groups. The data of the magnetostrictive group were significantly smaller than the piezoelectric group in 5 mm pocket depth （P〈0.01） on full power setting, while the opposite in 7 mm pocket depth. There was no significant difference between piezoelectric and magnetostrictive scaling in both 5 mm （P=0.217） and 7 mm （P=0.574） pocket depth on half power setting. The data increased significantly from 5 to 7 mm pocket depth （P〈0.01）, but no significant influence on different power settings. CONCLUSIONS： The study indicates that ultrasonic scaling instruments are more effective than a hand curette and the scaling efficacy decreased in deeper periodontal pocket.The results reveal no significant difference between magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments whether on half or full power settings.