3-year longitudinal study of the periodontal status of an adult population with gingivitis.
3-year longitudinal study of the periodontal status of an adult population with gingivitis.
复制标题
对患有牙龈炎的成年人牙周状况进行为期 3 年的纵向研究。
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-051x.1985.tb00920.x
复制
发表时间：
1985
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Laster,L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Listgarten,MA;Schifter,CC;Laster,L
69名年龄在20 - 73岁之间（平均年龄：37岁）的成年人被随机分配到对照组（C）和试验组（T）。其中，61人完成了3年的纵向研究。所有受试者在开始时都有不同程度的牙龈炎，但没有明显的牙周炎。基线检查PII，GI，探测深度（PD）和衰退后，差异暗场显微镜（DDFM）计数龈下细菌形态进行了合并样本来自一个牙齿表面在每个六分仪与最大的探测深度。每6个月重复检查一次，持续3年。C组每6个月进行一次常规松解。T组受试者根据先前描述的时间表和DDFM测试结果接受了放松，T组在研究结束时的回忆间隔为1至24个月（平均：15.7个月）。在研究结束时，T组的30名受试者中，有一半的人在18至36个月的时间内没有清洁牙齿，与其他T组受试者或C组患者相比，他们的牙周状况没有任何可检测到的恶化。在研究的前半部分，C和T受试者的平均PII和GI评分与基线相比均有所增加。然而，平均PD测量值保持不变。PD从基线增加3 mm或更多，仅在大约1/1000个个体牙齿表面比较中观察到，与预期仅偶然发生的频率相当。该观察结果表明，在该人群中，研究期间几乎没有囊袋形成。GI评分增加2个单位或更多的受试者相对较少。31名C型患者中有2名占42个受影响的牙科单元，而30名T型受试者中有5名占该组受影响牙科单元的40.8%。这些观察结果表明，尽管牙龈炎的患病率和发病率相对较高，但受试者对牙周炎的抵抗力相对较强。两种预防方案都不能有效消除牙龈炎。在这一人群中缺乏显著的破坏性疾病，这使得两种预防性维持治疗方案在预防牙周炎复发方面的相对有效性无法进行任何有意义的比较。
69 adults ranging in age from 20 to 73 (mean age: 37) were randomly assigned to a control (C) and a test (T) group. Of these, 61 completed the 3‐year longitudinal study. All subjects had varying degrees of gingivitis at the start, but no overt periodontitis. Following a base line examination for PII, GI, probing depth (PD) and recession, a differential darkfield microscopic (DDFM) count of subgingival bacterial morphotypes was carried out on a pooled sample originating from one tooth surface in each sextant with the greatest probing depth. Examinations were repeated every 6 months for 3 years. The C group received regular prophylaxes every 6 months. The T subjects received prophylaxes according to a previously described schedule, and on the basis of the DDFM test outcome.Recall intervals at the end of the study for the T group ranged from 1 to 24 months (mean: 15.7 months). Of 30 subjects in the T group at the end of the study, one half had not had their teeth cleaned for periods of 18 to 36 months without any detectable deterioration in their periodontal status by comparison with the other T subjects or the patients in the C group. Both C and T subjects exhibited increased mean PII and GI scores as compared to base line during the first half of the study. However, mean PD measurements remained unchanged.Increases in PD from base line of 3 mm or more were observed only in approximately 1 out of a 1000 individual tooth surface comparisons, a frequency comparable to that expected to occur by chance alone. This observation indicates that in this population, little if any pocket formation occurred during the study period. GI score increases of 2 units or more occurred in relatively few subjects. 2 of 31 C patients accounted for 42 of the affected dental units, while 5 out of 30 T subjects accounted for 40.8 % of the affected dental units in that group. These observations suggest that despite the relatively high prevalence and incidence of gingivitis, the subjects were relatively resistant to periodontitis. Neither preventive schedule was effective in eliminating gingivitis. The lack of significant destructive disease in this population prevented any meaningful comparison of the relative effectiveness of the two preventive maintenance regimens in preventing recurrences of periodontitis.