摘要
目的：利用三维模型分析法比较药物排龈线排龈和半导体激光排龈对游离龈（free gingival margin,FGM）龈沟宽度（sulcus width,SW）和牙龈退缩（gingival recession,GR）量的影响。方法：随机选取27名需要固定修复患者的50颗患牙（前牙21颗和前磨牙29颗）作为实验对象。将其随机分为2组,每组各25颗牙,分别采用药物排龈线排龈和半导体激光排龈。收集排龈前后即刻（GR_0、SW_0）、1 w（GR_1）和6 w（GR_6）的口内光学印模（CEREC~？Omnicam）,并通过Geomagic Qualify 2013软件比较排龈前后的SW和GR。结果：半导体激光组的SW0（0.421±0.095 mm）大于药物排龈线组的SW0（0.339±0.084 mm）,（P〈0.05）。半导体激光组的GR_0（0.283±0.097 mm）和GR_6（0.125±0.075 mm）分别小于药物排龈线组的GR_0（0.421±0.107 mm）和GR_6（0.190±0.082 mm）,差异均具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。半导体激光组的GR_1（0.188±0.066 mm）较药物排龈线组的GR_1（0.118±0.088 mm）大,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。半导体激光组的GR_0最大,GR_1次之,GR_6最小（P〈0.05）。结论：半导体激光和药物排龈线排龈均可造成牙龈永久性退缩,半导体激光排龈导致的牙龈退缩量较药物排龈线小。临床上可根据不同排龈方法的牙龈退缩量设计修复体边缘完成线的位置。
Objective： Utilizing three-dimensional model analysis to evaluate the sulcus width（SW） and gingival recession（GR） of free gingival margin,which are affected by the gingival retraction using presaturated retraction cord（with 8%epinephrine） and diode laser. Methods： Fifty teeth（ included 21 anterior teeth and 29 premolars） were selected randomly from6 patients who asked for fixed dental restorations. Teeth were allocated to 2 groups（ 25 teeth for each group） by simple randomization in which diode laser and presaturated retraction cords（ with 8% epinephrine） were used for gingival retraction respectively. Intraoral optical impressions（ CEREC~？Omnicam） were performed before retraction（ GR_0,SW_0）,immediately after retraction,1 week（ GR_1） and 6 weeks（GR_6） after gingival retraction. The SW and GR of the two gingival retraction methods were compared by Geomagic Qualify 2013 software. Results： The SW0 of the diode laser group（ 0. 421 ± 0. 095 mm） was larger than that of presaturated retraction cord group（ 0. 339 ± 0. 084 mm）（ P 0. 05）. The GR_0（ 0. 283 ± 0. 097 mm） and GR_6（ 0. 125 ± 0. 075 mm） of diode laser were both smaller than the GR_0（ 0. 421 ± 0. 107 mm） and GR_6（ 0. 190 ± 0. 082 mm）（ P 0. 05） of presaturated retraction cord,respectively. The GR_1 of diode laser（ 0. 188 ± 0. 066 mm） was larger than that of retraction cord（ 0. 118 ± 0. 088 mm）（ P 0. 05）. The GR_1 of diode laser（ 0. 125 ± 0. 075 mm） was larger than presaturated retraction cord. Conclusion： Both of the two gingival retraction ways will cause permanent gingival recession,and more gingival recession are found when presaturated retraction cord is used. The GR of different ways of gingival retraction should be taken into consideration in clinical practice when finish line of restoration was designed.
出处
《临床口腔医学杂志》
2016年第11期687-690,共4页
Journal of Clinical Stomatology
关键词
排龈
药物排龈线
半导体激光
龈沟宽度
牙龈退缩
Gingival retraction
Presaturated retraction cord
Diode laser
Sulcus width
Gingival recession
