论文部分内容阅读
目的通过比较不同类型的种植体周围菌群的分布情况,探讨不同种植体类型在健康和炎症状态下龈下菌群分布是否不同。方法选取40名患者的80枚种植体牙作为研究对象,其中FrialitⅡ种植体40例;Hoist种植体40例。采用自身对照配对设计,将种植体分为FrialitⅡ健康组(一组),Hoist健康组(二组),FrialitⅡ炎症组(三组)和Hoist炎症组(四组);比较两种种植体在健康状态下和炎症状态下牙周菌群的检出及分布情况。结果两种种植体炎症组的PD值均高于健康组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);健康组均以革兰阳性兼性厌氧的口腔链球菌和放线菌属为优势菌:分别占52.25%、16.45%、51.35%和17.46%;两种种植体炎症组均以革兰阴性厌氧杆菌和革兰阳性兼性厌氧口腔链球菌为优势菌:分别占41.44%、32.07%、45.69%和28.53%。健康组分别与种植体炎症组相比,细菌构成比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在健康或者炎症状态下,FrialitⅡ和Hoist种植体龈下菌群的构成相似,不能认为种植体周围龈下菌群的构成与种植体类型有关。
Objective To investigate the distribution of subgingival flora in different types of implants by comparing the distribution of different types of implants. Methods 80 dental implants of 40 patients were enrolled in this study, including 40 Frialit Ⅱ implants and 40 Hoist implants. The implant was divided into FrialitⅡhealthy group (one group), Hoist healthy group (two groups), FrialitⅡinflammatory group (three groups) and Hoist inflammation group (four groups) Status and inflammatory state of periodontal flora detection and distribution. Results The PD values of the two implants in the inflammatory group were significantly higher than those in the healthy group (P <0.05). In the healthy group, both Gram-positive facultative anaerobic oral streptococci and Actinomyces were dominant : Accounting for 52.25%, 16.45%, 51.35% and 17.46%, respectively. Gram-negative anaerobic bacteria and Gram-positive facultative anaerobic oral streptococci were the predominant bacteria in the two kinds of implant inflammation groups, accounting for 41.44% and 32.07 %, 45.69% and 28.53%. Compared with implant inflammation group, the difference of bacterial composition ratio in healthy group was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusions The composition of subgingival flora in Frialit II and Hoist implants is similar in healthy or inflamed states, and it can not be considered that the subgingival flora around implants is related to the type of implant.