论文部分内容阅读
目的:探索牙周-牙髓联合治疗对重度牙周炎患者的必要性。方法:收集2009年5月—2011年9月就诊于我院的重度牙周炎患者52例,随机分为A组和B组。A组患者给予牙周-牙髓联合治疗,B组患者给予单纯牙周治疗,分别记录2组患者在治疗前基线检查时、治疗后3个月、6个月、1 a、2 a的龈沟出血指数、探诊深度、附着水平,使用SPSS13.0软件包,采用t检验进行疗效分析。结果:治疗前基线检查时,A组与B组各观察指标的组间比较P>0.05,差异无显著性。治疗后3个月,A组与B组各观察指标的组间比较无显著差异(P>0.05)。治疗后6个月,A组与B组SBI有显著差异(P<0.05);PD、AL比较无显著差异(P>0.05)。治疗后1 a,A组与B组各观察指标的比较均有显著差异(P<0.05)。治疗后2 a,A组与B组SBI比较无显著差异(P>0.05);PD、AL比较有显著差异(P<0.05)。结论:针对重度牙周炎患者进行牙周-牙髓联合治疗,远期疗效良好。
Objective: To explore the necessity of combined periodontal-endodontic treatment for patients with severe periodontitis. Methods: 52 patients with severe periodontitis treated in our hospital from May 2009 to September 2011 were randomly divided into A group and B group. Group A patients were given periodontal-endodontic combination therapy, Group B patients were given simple periodontal treatment, were recorded in the two groups before treatment baseline, 3 months after treatment, 6 months, 1 a, 2 a gingival Ditch hemorrhage index, exploration depth, attachment level, the use of SPSS13.0 software package, using t test for efficacy analysis. Results: Before baseline treatment, there was no significant difference between groups A and B (P> 0.05). Three months after treatment, there was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). Six months after treatment, there was significant difference in SBI between group A and group B (P <0.05). There was no significant difference between PD and AL (P> 0.05). At 1 year after treatment, there was significant difference between the observation indexes in group A and group B (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in SBI between group A and group B at 2 months after treatment (P> 0.05). There was significant difference between PD and AL (P <0.05). Conclusion: Periodontal-endodontic treatment of patients with severe periodontitis has good long-term efficacy.