›› 2011, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (10): 1486-.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2011.10.028

• 短篇论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同脱敏剂治疗牙本质过敏症的疗效观察

宁 放, 曹 东   

  1. 上海交通大学 |医学院附属第九人民医院牙体牙髓科, 上海 200011
  • 出版日期:2011-10-28 发布日期:2011-10-27
  • 作者简介:宁 放(1962—), 女, 副主任医师;电子信箱: zhengbs627@hotmail.com。

Therapeutic effects of different desensitizers in treatment of dentine hypersensitivity

NING Fang, CAO Dong   

  1. Department of Endodontics, the Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200011, China
  • Online:2011-10-28 Published:2011-10-27

摘要:

目的 观察和比较劲润牙本质保护膜(Hybrid coat)与Gluma脱敏剂对后牙咬面牙本质过敏症的治疗效果。方法 选择60例牙本质过敏症患者的120颗患牙作为研究对象,随机采用Hybrid coat 脱敏治疗(Hybrid coat组,n=60)和Gluma脱敏剂治疗(Gluma组,n=60)。分别于治疗前、治疗完成即刻及治疗后1、3个月复诊时,采用冷气刺激和刺激探测方法检测记录牙齿敏感程度,计算两组脱敏有效率并进行比较分析。结果 Hybrid coat 组和Gluma组治疗完成即刻及治疗后1、3个月的脱敏有效率分别为91.7%和88.3%、90.0%和75.0%、81.7%和65.0%。统计学分析结果显示:两组治疗完成即刻的脱敏有效率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);Hybrid coat 组治疗后1、3个月的脱敏有效率显著高于Gluma组,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 两种脱敏剂对牙本质过敏症均显示了良好的即刻疗效,其中Hybrid coat的中期疗效优于Gluma脱敏剂,长期疗效尚待进一步观察。

关键词: 牙本质过敏症, 脱敏治疗, 劲润牙本质保膜, Gluma脱敏剂

Abstract:

Objective To observe and compare the therapeutic effects of Hybrid coat and Gluma desensitizer in treatment of dentine hypersensitivity of posterior teeth occlusal surface. Methods One hundred and twenty teeth from 60 patients with dentine hypersensitivity randomly received Hybrid coat desensitive treatment (Hybrid coat group, n=60) or Gluma desensitizer desensitive treatment (Gluma group, n=60). Air conditioning stimulation and stimulation probing method were used to detect and record the sensitive condition of teeth before treatment, immediately after treatment, 1 month after treatment and 3 months after treatment, and the desensitization valid rates were calculated and compared between groups. Results The desensitization valid rates of Hybrid coat group immediately after treatment, 1 month after treatment and 3 months after treatment were 91.7%, 90.0% and 81.7% respectively, and those of Gluma group were 88.3%, 75.0% and 65.0% respectively. Statistical analysis indicated that there was no significant difference in the desensitization valid rates between two groups immediately after treatment (P>0.05), while the desensitization valid rates of Hybrid coat group 1 month after treatment and 3 months after treatment were significantly higher than those of Gluma group (P<0.05). Conclusion Both desensitizers have favorable immediate therapeutic effects on dentine hypersensitivity. The mid-term therapeutic effect of Hybrid coat is better than that of Gluma desensitizer, while the long-term effect leaves room for further investigations.

Key words: dentine hypersensitivity, desensitive treatment, Hybrid coat, Gluma desensitizer