目的 分析全瓷冠与高嵌体对后牙牙体缺损的修复效果及对牙周炎性反应的影响。方法 用随机抽签法将我科2022年2月—2023年5月接治的50例后牙牙体缺损者分为对照组（签号为奇数,全瓷冠修复）与高嵌体组（签号为偶数,高嵌体修复）,各25例,对比两组修复效果（指标为修复体佩戴时间及总体康复时间）、牙周炎性反应、口腔健康指数及并发症发生率。结果 高嵌体组修复体佩戴时间（14.38±2.51）d、总体康复时间为（59.66±4.47）d,短于对照组的（21.96±2.87）d、（93.84±5.26）d（P<0.001）;高嵌体组牙周正常率（88.00%）高于对照组（64.00%）（P<0.05）;高嵌体组修复后的GI、PLI、SBI分别为（0.81±0.19）分、（0.85±0.16）分、（1.04±0.25）分,低于对照组的（0.97±0.23）分、（1.01±0.22）分、（1.31±0.28）分（P<0.05）;高嵌体组并发症发生率（8.00%）接近于对照组（12.00%）（P>0.05）。结论 修复后牙牙体缺损时选用高嵌体修复法可取得相对更好的修复效果,能够缩短患者佩戴修复体时间,加速其康复进程,对牙周炎性反应的减轻、口腔健康的改善均有积极影响,且并发症风险较小,整体效果更优。

Objective To analyze the effect of all-porcelain crown and onlay on posterior tooth defect repair and periodontitis reaction. Methods Fifty cases of posterior dental defects treated in our department from February 2022 to May 2023 were divided into control group（odd-numbered,all-porcelain crown restoration）and onlay group（even-numbered,onlay restoration）with 25 cases each．The repair effect,periodontitis response,oral health index and complication rate were compared between the two groups. Results The wearing time and overall recovery time of the onlay group were shorter than those of the control group（P<0.001）．The periodontal normal rate in the onlay group was higher than that in the control group （P<0.05）．gingival index,plaque index,sulcus bleeding index of the onlay group after repair were lower than those of the control group（P<0.05）．The complication rate of the high inlays group was close to that of the control group（P>0.05）. Conclusions In the repair of post-dental defects,the use of onlay repair can achieve relatively better repair effects,shorten the time for patients to wear the prosthesis,accelerate the rehabilitation process,have a positive impact on the reduction of periodontitis reaction and the improvement of oral health．The risk of its complications is small,and the overall effect is better．

目的 观察牙周基础治疗联合口腔正畸对牙周炎患者炎症细胞因子的疗效分析。方法 以2017年4月—2018年5月于我院医院进行治疗的82例牙周炎患者为研究对象,按随机数字表法分为研究组(41例,给予牙周基础治疗联合口腔正畸)和对照组(41例,口腔正畸)。观察两组患者治疗后临床疗效,对比治疗前后两组患者牙周指数情况、血清炎症因子及咀嚼功能。结果 治疗1周后,研究组有效率高于对照组(97.56% vs 82.93%),组间比较(P<0.05)。治疗前,两组SBI、PLI、GI比较(P＞0.05);治疗1周后,两组SBI、PLI、GI均低于治疗前,与对照组SBI、PLI、GI比较,研究组降低,组间比较(P<0.05)。治疗前,两组AL、PD比较(P＞0.05);治疗1周后,两组AL、PD均低于治疗前,与对照组AL、PD比较,研究组降低,组间比较(P<0.05)。治疗前,两组TNF-α、IL-8及IL-6水平比较(P＞0.05);治疗1周后,两组TNF-α、IL-8及IL-6水平均低于治疗前,与对照组TNF-α、IL-8及IL-6水平比较,研究组下降明显,组间比较(P<0.05)。治疗前,研究组及对照组的咀嚼功能分别为(51±2)分、(52±2)分,两组比较(P＞0.05);治疗后1周,研究组及对照组的咀嚼功能分别为(85±4)分、(73±3)分,研究组咀嚼功能明显高于对照组,组间比较(P<0.05)。结论 牙周基础治疗联合口腔正畸治疗牙周炎患者效果确切,可降低炎症反应,值得临床推广应用。

目的 研究牙周牙髓联合治疗对重度牙周炎的手术效果,以及手术预后评价。方法 研究对象选取我院2016年12月—2018年3月间收治的重度牙周炎患者60例(患齿共60颗),将其随机分为观察组(30例)和对照组(30例),分别接受牙周牙髓联合治疗和单纯牙周治疗。比较两组患者的治疗总有效率以及复发率和患者的美观满意度,同时比较治疗前后的各项临床指标水平。结果 观察组患者的治疗总有效率(93.33%)以及复发率(3.33%)均与对照组[(80.00%)、(10.00%)]无差异[(P=0.13,χ²=2.31)、(P=0.30,χ²=1.07)],美观满意度(96.67%)高于对照组(73.33%)(P=0.01,χ²=6.41);治疗一个月后,观察组患者的PD、AL、松动度水平与对照组无差异(P>0.05),龈沟出血指数(SBI)低于对照组(P<0.05);治疗三个月后,观察组的AL、SBI、松动度均低于对照组(P<0.05),PD水平与对照组无差异(P>0.05)。结论 牙周牙髓联合治疗可有效治疗重度牙周炎患者,改善患者临床症状,提高患者美观满意度,值得临床借鉴。

Objective To study the surgical effect of periodontal pulp combined therapy on severe periodontitis and the prognosis of surgery. Methods The study subjects selected 60 patients with severe periodontitis admitted to our hospital from December 2016 to March 2018 (60 teeth), and were randomly divided into observation group (30 cases) and control group (30 cases). The observation group received periodontal treatment with periodontal pulp and the control group received periodontal treatment alone. The total effective rate of treatment and the recurrence rate and the aesthetic satisfaction of the patients were compared between the two groups, and the clinical indicators before and after treatment were compared. Results The total effective rate (93.33%) and recurrence rate (3.33%) of the observation group were not different from the control group [(80.00%), (10.00%)] [(P=0.13, χ²=2.31), (P =0.30, χ²=1.07)], aesthetic satisfaction (96.67%) was higher than the control group (73.33) (P=0.01,χ2=6.41); after one month of treatment, in the PD, AL, looseness of the observation group, there was no difference between the level and the control group (P>0.05), and the sulcus bleeding index (SBI) was lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). After three months of treatment, the AL, SBI and looseness of the observation group were lower than those of the control group (P<0.05). P<0.05), the PD level was not different from the control groups (P>0.05). Conclusion The combined of periodontal and endodontic treatment may be effective to patients with severe periodontitis, improve the clinical symptoms of patients, and increase the aesthetic satisfaction of patients, which is worthy of clinical promotion.