观察与分析牙周炎患者应用中西联合治疗临床效果

Observation and analysis of combination therapy in patients with periodontitis with western clinical effects

目的 :观察与分析慢性牙周炎患者采用中药三黄粉联合牙周宁治疗疗效及安全性。方法 :112例慢性牙周炎患者(共156颗患牙)按照随机抽签法分组为对照组与观察组,各56例(78颗)。对照组采用牙周宁口服治疗,6片/次,3次/d,连续用药4周;观察组于对照组治疗基础上加用中药三黄粉治疗。观察2组患者基线时及治疗后第2、4周出血指数(BI)和牙周袋深度(PD)及附着丧失(AL)值、临床疗效。结果 :治疗后第2、4周,2组患者BI、PD值较基线时明显下降;第2周时,观察组BI值为(0.89±0.09)、PD值为(2.59±0.05)明显低于对照组为BI值(1.13±0.10)、PD值(2.85±0.07);第4周时,观察组BI值为(0.15±0.04)与对照组为(0.19±0.03)比较无明显差异;观察组PD值为(1.86±0.05)明显低于对照组为(2.29±0.08)。治疗后第2、4周,对照组AL值无明显变化;治疗第2周时,观察组AL值与基线时、对照组比较无明显差异;治疗第4周时,观察组AL值低于基线时、对照组。观察组治疗有效率为91.03%(71/78)高于对照组83.33%(65/78);2组患者均未发生呕吐等不良反应。结论 :临床应用中西医结合治疗相比单纯西药治疗疗效更为显著,且无明显不良反应发生,值得进一步研究与分析。

objective Observation and analysis of chronic periodontitis patients with periodontal Ning medicine three gluten combined treatment efficacy and safety. Methods 112 cases of chronic periodontitis patients (a total of 156 teeth) grouped ac-cording to the random draw method for the control group and observation group, the 56 cases (78). The control group with oral treatment of periodontal Ning, 6 / time, 3 times / d, continuous medication for four weeks; observation group therapy based on the use of traditional Chinese medicine treatment in the control group of three gluten. When the two groups were observed at baseline and 4 weeks after treatment, bleeding index (BI) and periodontal pocket depth (PD) and attachment loss (AL) value, clinical efficacy. Results After 4 weeks of treatment, two patients BI, PD when compared with baseline values decreased signif-icantly; the first two weeks, the observation group BI value (0.89±0.09), PD value (2.59±0.05) BI values with the control group (1.13±0.10), PD value (2.85±0.07) comparison; first four weeks, the observation group BI value (0.15±0.04) and control <br> group (0.19±0.03) Compare (P>0.05); observation group PD value (1.86±0.05) and control group (2.29±0.08) comparison (P<0.05). After 4 weeks of treatment, the control group had no significant change in the AL value, when compared with baseline (P>0.05); the first two weeks of treatment, the observation group AL with baseline values, the control group (P>0.05); treatment the first four weeks, the time value of baseline AL observation group, the control group (P<0.05). Observation group therapy effective rate 91.03% (71/78) and the control group was 83.33% (65/78) Comparison (P<0.05); 2 groups of patients were not vomiting and other adverse reactions. Conclusion Clinical application of combination therapy compared with western medicine alone more significant effect, and no significant adverse events, worthy of further research and analysis.