口腔卫生状况与乳牙龋齿发生率的关系

D. Damyanova, S. Angelova
{"title":"口腔卫生状况与乳牙龋齿发生率的关系","authors":"D. Damyanova, S. Angelova","doi":"10.4172/2161-1122-C4-039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tooth socket preservation has become a key component of contemporary clinical dentistry. This term designates alveolar preservation that achieved by immediate filling of the undamaged tooth socket with biomaterials. Different types of bone substitutions and membranes have been utilized for socket augmentation. Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy of the amniotic membrane, as a new material, on bone density in comparison with conventional methods in this study. In this randomized clinical trial 75 patients (48 females and 27 males) underwent mandibular molar extraction and socket preservation by using allograft bone in control group: allograft bone with collagen membrane in group 1 and allograft bone with amniotic membrane in group 2. All 25 stages of socket preservation procedures in each group were done by the same surgeon and evaluated by the same radiographic machine. The data were statistically analyzed by SPSS software, one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests. P value <0.05 was considered as significant. The results of this study showed that after 4 months the mean density difference in extracted site was 1736.88 in control group; for patients who underwent socket preservation with allograft and collagen membrane it was 1746.20 and in cases with allograft in addition amniotic membrane it was 1762.48. The results demonstrated that, compared with control group, both collagen membrane and amniotic membrane showed a higher bone density mean (P Value =/998 and P Value = /918), but this difference was not statistically significant. Whereas amniotic membrane showed a higher bone density than the collagen membrane, there are no significant differences between these two groups (P Value =/994). Although socket preservation methods may be effective on alveolar bone contour stability, we cannot significantly confirm the efficacy of these methods on bone quality and density.","PeriodicalId":17001,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association of oral hygiene status with caries incidence in primary teeth\",\"authors\":\"D. Damyanova, S. Angelova\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2161-1122-C4-039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Tooth socket preservation has become a key component of contemporary clinical dentistry. This term designates alveolar preservation that achieved by immediate filling of the undamaged tooth socket with biomaterials. Different types of bone substitutions and membranes have been utilized for socket augmentation. Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy of the amniotic membrane, as a new material, on bone density in comparison with conventional methods in this study. In this randomized clinical trial 75 patients (48 females and 27 males) underwent mandibular molar extraction and socket preservation by using allograft bone in control group: allograft bone with collagen membrane in group 1 and allograft bone with amniotic membrane in group 2. All 25 stages of socket preservation procedures in each group were done by the same surgeon and evaluated by the same radiographic machine. The data were statistically analyzed by SPSS software, one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests. P value <0.05 was considered as significant. The results of this study showed that after 4 months the mean density difference in extracted site was 1736.88 in control group; for patients who underwent socket preservation with allograft and collagen membrane it was 1746.20 and in cases with allograft in addition amniotic membrane it was 1762.48. The results demonstrated that, compared with control group, both collagen membrane and amniotic membrane showed a higher bone density mean (P Value =/998 and P Value = /918), but this difference was not statistically significant. Whereas amniotic membrane showed a higher bone density than the collagen membrane, there are no significant differences between these two groups (P Value =/994). Although socket preservation methods may be effective on alveolar bone contour stability, we cannot significantly confirm the efficacy of these methods on bone quality and density.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-1122-C4-039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-1122-C4-039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

牙槽保存已成为当代牙科临床的重要组成部分。这个术语指的是通过立即用生物材料填充未受损的牙槽来实现牙槽的保存。不同类型的骨替代物和膜已被用于窝骨增强。我们的目的是评估羊膜作为一种新材料对骨密度的影响,并将其与传统方法进行比较。在本随机临床试验中,75例患者(女性48例,男性27例)采用同种异体骨进行下颌磨牙拔除和牙窝保存,对照组为同种异体骨胶原膜组,第二组为同种异体骨羊膜组。所有25个阶段的窝保留手术均由同一位外科医生完成,并由同一台x线机进行评估。采用SPSS软件、单因素方差分析和Tukey事后检验对数据进行统计学分析。P值<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果表明:对照组4个月后抽提部位的平均密度差为1736.88;同种异体移植和胶原膜保存眼窝组为1746.20,同种异体移植加羊膜组为1762.48。结果显示,与对照组相比,胶原膜和羊膜的骨密度平均值均较高(P值=/998和P值=/ 918),但差异无统计学意义。羊膜骨密度高于胶原膜,但两组间差异无统计学意义(P值=/994)。虽然窝保存方法可能对牙槽骨轮廓稳定有效,但我们不能显著证实这些方法对骨质量和密度的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Association of oral hygiene status with caries incidence in primary teeth
Tooth socket preservation has become a key component of contemporary clinical dentistry. This term designates alveolar preservation that achieved by immediate filling of the undamaged tooth socket with biomaterials. Different types of bone substitutions and membranes have been utilized for socket augmentation. Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy of the amniotic membrane, as a new material, on bone density in comparison with conventional methods in this study. In this randomized clinical trial 75 patients (48 females and 27 males) underwent mandibular molar extraction and socket preservation by using allograft bone in control group: allograft bone with collagen membrane in group 1 and allograft bone with amniotic membrane in group 2. All 25 stages of socket preservation procedures in each group were done by the same surgeon and evaluated by the same radiographic machine. The data were statistically analyzed by SPSS software, one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests. P value <0.05 was considered as significant. The results of this study showed that after 4 months the mean density difference in extracted site was 1736.88 in control group; for patients who underwent socket preservation with allograft and collagen membrane it was 1746.20 and in cases with allograft in addition amniotic membrane it was 1762.48. The results demonstrated that, compared with control group, both collagen membrane and amniotic membrane showed a higher bone density mean (P Value =/998 and P Value = /918), but this difference was not statistically significant. Whereas amniotic membrane showed a higher bone density than the collagen membrane, there are no significant differences between these two groups (P Value =/994). Although socket preservation methods may be effective on alveolar bone contour stability, we cannot significantly confirm the efficacy of these methods on bone quality and density.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science
Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信