在伊朗设拉子的一家牙周私人诊所中,不稳定与完全依从牙周维护期间的牙齿脱落评估:一项10年回顾性研究。

Amir Haji Mohammad Taghi Seirafi, Reyhaneh Ebrahimi, Ali Golkari, Hengameh Khosropanah, Ahmad Soolari
{"title":"在伊朗设拉子的一家牙周私人诊所中,不稳定与完全依从牙周维护期间的牙齿脱落评估:一项10年回顾性研究。","authors":"Amir Haji Mohammad Taghi Seirafi,&nbsp;Reyhaneh Ebrahimi,&nbsp;Ali Golkari,&nbsp;Hengameh Khosropanah,&nbsp;Ahmad Soolari","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of periodontal maintenance (PM), but there are conflicting data regarding tooth loss following patient compliance.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Seventy-two periodontal patients (52 women, 20 men), 86% of whom had been diagnosed with chronic moderate to severe periodontitis, were included in this retrospective study. Clinical variables such as tooth loss, bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index and probing depth were collected from patients after 10 years of PM. The periodontal status of regular compliers (RCs) and erratic compliers (ECs) were compared in a private practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The statistical analysis showed that clinical variables were not significant between RCs and ECs except for BOP (p = 0.038). During PM, 24 teeth (a mean of 1.5 teeth per participant) were lost in the RC group, and 80 teeth (a mean of 1.43 teeth per participant) were lost in the EC group. Molars were the most frequently lost teeth and canines the least. In general, those patients with less BOP lost fewer teeth (p = 0.002) and attended more recall visits (p = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the present sample, RCs and ECs did not show significant differences in rates of tooth loss. However, a significant difference between RCs and ECs in regard to BOP was observed at the final examination (p = 0.038). There was also a strong relationship between BOP and recall visits: the patients with less BOP attended more recall visits (p = 0.001).</p>","PeriodicalId":17281,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tooth loss assessment during periodontal maintenance in erratic versus complete compliance in a periodontal private practice in Shiraz, Iran: a 10-year retrospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Amir Haji Mohammad Taghi Seirafi,&nbsp;Reyhaneh Ebrahimi,&nbsp;Ali Golkari,&nbsp;Hengameh Khosropanah,&nbsp;Ahmad Soolari\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of periodontal maintenance (PM), but there are conflicting data regarding tooth loss following patient compliance.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Seventy-two periodontal patients (52 women, 20 men), 86% of whom had been diagnosed with chronic moderate to severe periodontitis, were included in this retrospective study. Clinical variables such as tooth loss, bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index and probing depth were collected from patients after 10 years of PM. The periodontal status of regular compliers (RCs) and erratic compliers (ECs) were compared in a private practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The statistical analysis showed that clinical variables were not significant between RCs and ECs except for BOP (p = 0.038). During PM, 24 teeth (a mean of 1.5 teeth per participant) were lost in the RC group, and 80 teeth (a mean of 1.43 teeth per participant) were lost in the EC group. Molars were the most frequently lost teeth and canines the least. In general, those patients with less BOP lost fewer teeth (p = 0.002) and attended more recall visits (p = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the present sample, RCs and ECs did not show significant differences in rates of tooth loss. However, a significant difference between RCs and ECs in regard to BOP was observed at the final examination (p = 0.038). There was also a strong relationship between BOP and recall visits: the patients with less BOP attended more recall visits (p = 0.001).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"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 the International Academy of Periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:几项研究已经证明了牙周维护(PM)的有效性,但关于患者依从性后牙齿脱落的数据存在矛盾。方法:回顾性研究72例牙周病患者(女性52例,男性20例),其中86%诊断为慢性中重度牙周炎。收集PM 10年后患者牙齿脱落、探诊出血(BOP)、菌斑指数和探诊深度等临床变量。在私人执业中比较了常规检举者(rc)和不稳定检举者(ec)的牙周状况。结果:经统计学分析,除BOP外,RCs与ECs的临床指标差异无统计学意义(p = 0.038)。在PM期间,RC组丢失24颗牙齿(平均每个参与者1.5颗牙齿),EC组丢失80颗牙齿(平均每个参与者1.43颗牙齿)。臼齿是最常丢失的牙齿,犬齿最少。总体而言,BOP较低的患者牙齿脱落较少(p = 0.002),且就诊次数较多(p = 0.001)。结论:在目前的样本中,RCs和ECs在牙齿脱落率方面没有显着差异。然而,在期末检查中观察到RCs和ec之间在BOP方面存在显著差异(p = 0.038)。BOP和回忆访诊之间也有很强的关系:BOP较少的患者参加了更多的回忆访诊(p = 0.001)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Tooth loss assessment during periodontal maintenance in erratic versus complete compliance in a periodontal private practice in Shiraz, Iran: a 10-year retrospective study.

Background: Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of periodontal maintenance (PM), but there are conflicting data regarding tooth loss following patient compliance.

Method: Seventy-two periodontal patients (52 women, 20 men), 86% of whom had been diagnosed with chronic moderate to severe periodontitis, were included in this retrospective study. Clinical variables such as tooth loss, bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index and probing depth were collected from patients after 10 years of PM. The periodontal status of regular compliers (RCs) and erratic compliers (ECs) were compared in a private practice.

Results: The statistical analysis showed that clinical variables were not significant between RCs and ECs except for BOP (p = 0.038). During PM, 24 teeth (a mean of 1.5 teeth per participant) were lost in the RC group, and 80 teeth (a mean of 1.43 teeth per participant) were lost in the EC group. Molars were the most frequently lost teeth and canines the least. In general, those patients with less BOP lost fewer teeth (p = 0.002) and attended more recall visits (p = 0.001).

Conclusions: In the present sample, RCs and ECs did not show significant differences in rates of tooth loss. However, a significant difference between RCs and ECs in regard to BOP was observed at the final examination (p = 0.038). There was also a strong relationship between BOP and recall visits: the patients with less BOP attended more recall visits (p = 0.001).

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Periodontal status in cannabis smokers. A systematic review. Impact of Subepithelial Connective Tissue for Root Coverage on Brazilian Patients' Quality of Life: A Longitudinal Clinical Study. Coefficient of variation of red cell distribution width has correlations to periodontal inflamed surface area in non-obese hypertensive patients. Immediate implant placement in periodontally infected sites- A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chitosan-based biomaterial and hyaluronic acid on the repair of intrabuccal bone defects in rats.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1