首页> 外文期刊>Quintessence international >Comparison of biofilm removal using glycine air polishing versus sodium bicarbonate air polishing or hand instrumentation on full-arch fixed implant rehabilitations: a split-mouth study
【24h】

Comparison of biofilm removal using glycine air polishing versus sodium bicarbonate air polishing or hand instrumentation on full-arch fixed implant rehabilitations: a split-mouth study

机译:使用甘氨酸空气抛光与碳酸氢钠空气抛光剂或全拱形固定植入物康复的碳酸氢钠空气抛光或手工仪器的比较:分裂性研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives:To compare the cleaning efficacy of glycine air polishing against two different professional oral hygiene techniques on implants supporting full-arch fixed prostheses. Method and materials:Thirty patients with a total of 32 implant fixed full-arch rehabilitations in the maxilla and/or mandible (134 implants) were included. After the removal of the screw-retained prostheses, baseline pen-implant spontaneous bleeding (SB), Plaque Index (PI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded (T0). Three oral hygiene treatments were assigned randomly following a split-mouth method: all the patients received glycine air polishing (G) in one side of the arch (n = 32), and sodium bicarbonate air polishing (B) (n = 16) or manual scaling with carbon-fiber curette (C) (n = 16) was performed in the opposite side. After the hygiene procedures, PI and SB were recorded and patient's comfort degree towards the three techniques was analyzed by questionnaires using a rating scale from 1 to 5 (T1). Results: PI reduction was significantly higher for G (T0, 2.88 +/- 1.37;T1, 0.04 +/- 0.21) and B (T0,3.13 +/- 1.34; T1, 0.0 +/- 0.0) as compared with C (T0, 2.15 +/- 1.46; T1, 0.44 +/- 0.7) (P < .001). B reported the highest mean value of SB (T0,0.0 +/- 0.0; T1,3.42 +/- 0.75) compared with G (T0, 0.05 +/- 0.21;T1,1.60 +/- 1.05) and C (T0, 0.07 +/- 0.24; T1, 0.73 +/- 0.91) (P < .001). A significant difference in comfort mean score was found between G (4.8 +/- 0.5) and B (3.5 +/- 1.7) (P = .014), no difference between G and C (4.7 +/- 0.7) (P = .38). Conclusion: Professional oral hygiene on implants using glycine air polishing showed high levels of both cleaning efficacy and patients' acceptance.
机译:目的:比较甘氨酸空气抛光对支撑全拱固定假体的植入物的两种不同专业口腔卫生技术的清洁效果。方法和材料:包括颌骨和/或下颌骨(134种植体)共32例植入固定的全拱恢复的30例患者。在去除螺旋保留的假体之后,记录基线笔植入自发性出血(Sb),斑块指数(PI),探测深度(Pd)和在探测(BOP)上出血(T0)。在分裂口中随机分配三种口腔卫生处理:所有患者在弓(n = 32)的一侧接受甘氨酸空气抛光(g),以及碳酸氢钠空气抛光(b)(n = 16)或用碳纤维酱(c)(n = 16)在相对侧进行手动缩放。在卫生程序,记录PI和Sb之后,使用从1至5(T1)的评级尺度通过问卷分析患者对三种技术的舒适度进行分析。结果:G(T0,2.88 +/- 1.37; T1,0.04 +/- 0.21)和B(T0.3.13 +/- 1.34; T1,0.0 +/- 0.0),PI还原显着更高T0,2.15 +/- 1.46; T1,0.44 +/- 0.7)(P <.001)。 B与G(t0,0.05 +/- 0.21; t1,1.60 +/- 1.05)和c(t0,0.0 +/- 0.21; t1,1.60 +/- 1.05)和c(t0, 0.07 +/- 0.24; T1,0.73 +/- 0.91)(P <.001)。在G(4.8 +/- 0.5)和B(3.5 +/- 1.7)之间发现舒适均值的显着差异(P = .014),G和C之间没有差异(4.7 +/- 0.7)(P = .38)。结论:使用甘氨酸空气抛光的植入物的专业口腔卫生显示出高水平的清洁疗效和患者的接受。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
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