首页> 外文期刊>American journal of dentistry >Comparison of different maintenance strategies within supportive implant therapy for prevention of peri-implant inflammation during the first year after implant restoration. A randomized, dental hygiene practice-based multicenter study
【24h】

Comparison of different maintenance strategies within supportive implant therapy for prevention of peri-implant inflammation during the first year after implant restoration. A randomized, dental hygiene practice-based multicenter study

机译:不同维护策略在植入物恢复后第一年预防围植入血液炎症的不同维护策略。 基于随机的牙科卫生实践的多中心研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Purpose: This randomized clinical multicenter study compared different professional preventive approaches on peri-implant inflammation under supportive implant therapy (SIT). Methods: 105 participants (167 implants) were randomly allocated to four groups. All participants were under SIT with a 3-month recall interval. Plaque removal was performed by using manual curettes, a sonic-driven scaler, and a prophylaxis brush (Group A), supplemented by chlorhexidine (CHX) varnish on the implant surfaces (Group C) or by using manual curettes, air polishing with glycine powder, and a prophylaxis brush (Group B), supplemented by treatment with CHX varnish on the implant surfaces (Group D). The peri-implant probing depths (PPD), mucosal recession (MR), and bleeding on probing (BOP) on implants were determined at baseline. After 12 months, the final PPD, MR, and BOP on implants were assessed. The statistical evaluation consisted of Kruskal-Wallis-test, Wilcoxon-test and Chi-squared test modified according to McNemar (P< 0.05). Results: 62 subjects (n= 101 implants) were available for assessment. In Groups A, C, and D, no significant implant-related differences between baseline and follow-up were found in PPD, MR, and BOP. Group B showed a significant difference (P= 0.022) between baseline (1.77 +/- 1.58 mm) and follow-up (2.31 +/- 1.54 mm) in PPD. The location of implant (P= 0.02), the type of implant (P= 0.01), and the age of subject (P= 0.04) had significant influences on BOP.
机译:目的:这种随机临床多中心研究比较了植入物治疗(SIT)下的腹部植入炎症的不同专业预防方法。方法:105名参与者(167种植体)被随机分配给四组。所有参与者都坐在3个月的召回区间。通过使用手动刮刀,声波驱动的缩放器和预防刷子(A)进行斑块去除,由植入表面(C组)上的氯己定(CHX)清漆或通过使用手动刮刀,用甘氨酸粉末的空气抛光和预防刷子(B),通过用CHX清漆对植入表面(D组D)进行处理。在基线确定植入物探测深度(PPD),粘膜衰退(MR)和出血(BOP)上的出血。 12个月后,评估最终PPD,MR和植入物的BOP。统计评估由Kruskal-Wallis-Test,Wilcoxon-Test和Chi平方试验组成,根据McNemar改性(P <0.05)。结果:62项受试者(n = 101种植体)可用于评估。在A,C和D组中,在PPD,MR和BOP中没有发现基线和随访之间的显着植入物相关差异。 B组在基线(1.77 +/- 1.58 mm)之间显示出显着差异(P = 0.022)和PPD中的后续(2.31 +/- 1.54 mm)。植入物的位置(P = 0.02),植入物的类型(P = 0.01),对象年龄(P = 0.04)对BOP具有显着影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号