Effect of glycine powder air-polishing on the gingiva
Effect of glycine powder air-polishing on the gingiva
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-051x.2007.01195.x
复制
发表时间：
2008-04-01
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Flemmig, Thomas F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Petersilka, Gregor;Faggion, Clovis Mariano, Jr.;Flemmig, Thomas F.
目的：甘氨酸粉空气抛光(GPAP)去除龈下生物膜的安全性和有效性已被证实。材料和方法：在10名患者中，8颗牙周治疗后剩余探诊深度至少5 mm的牙齿被随机分为以下干预措施：GPAP(试验)、SBAP(阳性对照)、手工器械(阳性对照)或不处理(阴性对照)。在每组中，在器械安装后立即和14天后的一次牙龈活检。光镜下评估受损的牙龈上皮(GE)，并用组织学评分(值1-4)进行量化。结果：GPAP导致GE轻度侵蚀(1分和2分)，而阳性对照标本表现为中到重度侵蚀(2分~4分)。GPAP组与阳性对照组比较，差异有统计学意义(P<；0.05)。结论：与SBAP或手用器械相比，GPAP对牙龈的侵蚀较小，进一步支持了这种新的清创技术的安全性。
Objectives: Safety and efficacy of glycine powder air-polishing (GPAP) in removing subgingival biofilm have been previously demonstrated. The hypothesis that GPAP results in less gingival erosion than sodium bicarbonate air-polishing (SBAP) or hand-instrumentation was assessed.Material and Methods: In each of 10 patients, eight teeth with a residual probing depth of at least 5 mm following initial periodontal therapy were randomly assigned to the following interventions: GPAP (test), SBAP (positive control), hand-instrumentation (positive control), or no treatment (negative control). In each group, gingival biopsies were taken immediately after instrumentation and one 14 days later. Damaged gingival epithelium (GE) was assessed by light microscopy and quantified by a histological score (values 1-4). Differences between groups were evaluated using the marginal homogeneity test.Results: GPAP resulted in minor erosions of the GE (scores 1 and 2), whereas positive control specimens displayed moderate to severe erosions (scores 2-4). Differences between GPAP and positive controls were significant (p < 0.05). Fourteen days following instrumentation GE under assessment was found to be intact in all groups.Conclusion: The data indicated that GPAP results in less gingival erosion than SBAP or hand instrumentation, further supporting the safety of this new debridement technique.