Journal of clinical periodontology · 2007
Microbiological findings after periodontal therapy using curettes, Er:YAG laser, sonic, and ultrasonic scalers.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Derdilopoulou Foteini V, Nonhoff Jörg, Neumann Konrad, Kielbassa Andrej M
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate and compare the microbiological effects of hand instruments, Er:YAG-laser, sonic, and ultrasonic scalers in patients with chronic periodontitis. Patient perception of each treatment was documented.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 72 patients, bacterial samples were collected from the deepest pocket in each quadrant (total: 288 sites). A polymerase chain reaction kit estimated the amount of Aggregatibacter (Actinobacillus) actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), Prevotella intermedia (Pi), Tannerella forsythensis (Tf), and Treponema denticola (Td) at baseline as well as 3 and 6 months after therapy. One quadrant in each patient was randomly assigned to curettes (H-group), Er:YAG laser (L-group), sonic device (S-group), or ultrasonic device (U-group).
RESULTS: Three months post-operatively, the amounts of Pg, Pi, Tf, and Td were significantly reduced in all groups. Laser and sonic instrumentation failed to reduce Aa. Six months after therapy, significant differences were still detected for Pg (L- and U-group), for Pi and Tf (S-group), and for Td (L-, S- and U-group). Patients rated ultrasonic treatment as more preferable than hand and laser instrumentation.
CONCLUSION: The various treatment methods resulted in a comparable reduction of the evaluated periodontal pathogens, and bacterial increase was only partially different 6 months post-operatively. Ultrasonic instrumentation caused less discomfort.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 72 patients, bacterial samples were collected from the deepest pocket in each quadrant (total: 288 sites). A polymerase chain reaction kit estimated the amount of Aggregatibacter (Actinobacillus) actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), Prevotella intermedia (Pi), Tannerella forsythensis (Tf), and Treponema denticola (Td) at baseline as well as 3 and 6 months after therapy. One quadrant in each patient was randomly assigned to curettes (H-group), Er:YAG laser (L-group), sonic device (S-group), or ultrasonic device (U-group).
RESULTS: Three months post-operatively, the amounts of Pg, Pi, Tf, and Td were significantly reduced in all groups. Laser and sonic instrumentation failed to reduce Aa. Six months after therapy, significant differences were still detected for Pg (L- and U-group), for Pi and Tf (S-group), and for Td (L-, S- and U-group). Patients rated ultrasonic treatment as more preferable than hand and laser instrumentation.
CONCLUSION: The various treatment methods resulted in a comparable reduction of the evaluated periodontal pathogens, and bacterial increase was only partially different 6 months post-operatively. Ultrasonic instrumentation caused less discomfort.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedAggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitansAttitude to HealthBacteroidesChronic DiseaseColony Count, MicrobialCurettageDental ScalingFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLasersMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPeriodontal PocketPeriodontitisPorphyromonas gingivalisPrevotella intermediaSingle-Blind MethodTreponema denticolaUltrasonic Therapy