根分叉病变患牙经牙周非手术治疗后5年失牙状况及多因素分析

doi:10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.05.020

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的:观察根分叉病变患牙经牙周非手术治疗后5年的失牙状况及失牙的影响因素。方法:纳入79例就诊于北京大学口腔医院牙周科的慢性牙周炎患者,经牙周非手术治疗纵向观察5年。比较分析双侧下磨牙初诊及5年后随访时探诊深度(probing depth,PD)、出血指数(bleeding index,BI)、根分叉病变等级(furcation index,FI)、牙松动度等临床指标,并利用根尖片评价初诊时根分叉区牙槽骨吸收量,以了解根分叉病变患牙治疗前后临床指标的变化及失牙状况,并进一步分析影响失牙的主要因素。结果:(1)非手术治疗对伴有根分叉病变的慢性牙周炎患牙PD的改善是显著有效的,但根分叉病变的存在会影响其PD值的改善。(2)初始根分叉区PD值、松动度以及影像学根分叉区垂直骨丧失量和根分叉病变部位骨吸收区域面积与失牙成明显正相关(P<0.001),且FI=3、FI=4亦显著增加了失牙风险(P=0.017,P=0.007),而年龄(P=0.703)、性别(P=0.243)、吸烟史(P=0.895)等在本研究中与失牙无显著相关。(3)FI=3或FI=4的失牙风险显著高于FI为2及2以下的患牙,5年存活率不足50%。结论:根分叉病变患牙失牙风险与根分叉病变密切相关,根分叉病变严重、根分叉区水平及垂直骨丧失量多会显著增加失牙风险。

关键词: 慢性牙周炎, 根分叉部缺损, 牙缺失, 预后

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate the tooth loss status of mandibular molars with furcation involvements after 5-year non-surgical periodontal treatment,and to analyze the factors that affected the tooth loss. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted in 79 patients with chronic periodontitis, who had received non-surgical periodontal treatment and 5 years of periodontal maintenance treatment in Department of Periodontology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology from 1988 to 2012. Their clinical indexes, including probing depth (PD), bleeding index (BI), furcation index (FI) and tooth mobility were both evaluated before treatment and at the last time of the maintenance treatment. Bone resorption at furcation area was measured at the first visit by periapical radiographs taken by professional doctors of medical imaging. The status of tooth loss after 5-year non-surgical periodontal treatment on mandibular molars with furcation involvement, and the factors that affected the tooth loss were analyzed. Results: (1) Non-surgical treatment was significantly effective on the changes of PD in the patients of chronic periodontitis with furcation involvement, while the presence of furcation involvement could affect the improvement of PD here. (2) PD at the furcation area, tooth mobility, vertical bone resorption, and bone resorption area were all significant risk factors of mandibular molar missing (P<0.001), and the same with FI=3 and FI=4 (P=0.017, P=0.007),while age (P=0.703), gender (P=0.243) and smoking history (P=0.895) were not related to the tooth loss in this study. (3) The risk of tooth loss in mandibular molars with FI≥3 were significantly higher than those with FI≤2, and the survival rate of the former was less than 50%. Conclusion: The loss of mandibular molars with furcation involvement was related to the furcation involvement, meanwhile the degree of furcation involvement and bone resorption can significantly increase the risk of tooth loss.

Key words: Chronic periodontitis, Furcation defects, Tooth loss, Prognosis

中图分类号:

R781.42

石姝雯,孟洋,焦剑,李文静,孟焕新,栾庆先,王万春. 根分叉病变患牙经牙周非手术治疗后5年失牙状况及多因素分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(5): 913-918.

Shu-wen SHI,Yang MENG,Jian JIAO,Wen-jing LI,Huan-xin MENG,Qing-xian LUAN,Wan-chun WANG. Tooth loss and multivariable analysis after 5-year non-surgical periodontal treatment on molars with furcation involvement[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2019, 51(5): 913-918.

图/表 4

图1

表1

表2

图2

参考文献 15

[1]	孟焕新 . 临床牙周病学[M]. 2版. 北京: 北京大学医学出版社, 2014: 216-219.
[2]	孟洋, 王万春, 栾庆先 . 根分叉病变发生、发展与治疗研究进展[J]. 中国实用口腔医学杂志, 2016,4(9):237-242.
[3]	Grover V, Malhotra R, Kapoor A , et al. Correlation of the interdental and the interradicular bone loss: A radiovisuographic analysis[J]. J Indian Soc Periodontol, 2014,18(4):482-487.
[4]	Dannewitz B, Krieger JK, Hüsing J , et al. Loss of molars in periodontally treated patients: A retrospective analysis five years or more after active periodontal treatment[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2006,33(1):53-61.
[5]	Do Vale HF, Del Peloso Ribeiro E, Bittencourt S, et al. Radiographic characteristics of furcation involvements in mandibular molars as prognostic indicators of healing after nonsurgical periodontal therapy[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2009,140(4):434-440.
[6]	Mazza JE, Newman MG, Sims TN . Clinical and antimicrobial effect of stannous fluoride on periodontitis[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 1981,8(3):203-212.
[7]	Jiao J, Shi D, Cao ZQ , et al. Effectiveness of non-surgical periodontal therapy in a large Chinese population with chronic periodontitis[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2017,44(1):42-50.
[8]	Hou GL, Hung CC, Tsai CC , et al. Topographic study of root trunk type on Chinese molars with Class Ⅲ furcation involvements: Molar type and furcation site[J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2005,25(2):173-179.
[9]	Bowers GM, Schallhorn RG, McClain PK, et al. Factors influen-cing the outcome of regenerative therapy in mandibular class Ⅱ furcations: Part Ⅰ[J]. J Periodontol, 2003,74(9):1255-1268.
[10]	James JR, Arun KV, Talwar A , et al. Mathematical analysis of furcation angle in extracted mandibular molars[J]. J Indian Soc Periodontol, 2013,17(1):68-71.
[11]	Faggion CM Jr, Petersilka G, Lange DE , et al. Prognostic model for tooth survival in patients treated for periodontitis[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2007,34(3):226-231.
[12]	Checchi L, Montevecchi M, Gatto MR , et al. Retrospective study of tooth loss in 92 treated periodontal patients[J]. J Clin Perio-dontol, 2002,29(7):651-656.
[13]	Graetz C, Schützhold S, Plaumann A , et al. Prognostic factors for the loss of molars: An 18-years retrospective cohort study[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2015,42(10):943-950.
[14]	Onabolu O, Donos N, Tu YK , et al. Periodontal progression based on radiographic records: An observational study in chronic and aggressive periodontitis[J]. J Dent, 2015,43(6):673-682.
[15]	沈潇, 施捷, 徐莉 , 等. 伴错牙合畸形的侵袭性牙周炎患者牙周-正畸联合治疗的临床评价[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017,49(1):60-66.

相关文章 15

[1]	欧俊永,倪坤明,马潞林,王国良,颜野,杨斌,李庚午,宋昊东,陆敏,叶剑飞,张树栋. 肌层浸润性膀胱癌合并中高危前列腺癌患者的预后因素[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 582-588.
[2]	刘帅,刘磊,刘茁,张帆,马潞林,田晓军,侯小飞,王国良,赵磊,张树栋. 伴静脉癌栓的肾上腺皮质癌的临床治疗及预后[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 624-630.
[3]	虞乐,邓绍晖,张帆,颜野,叶剑飞,张树栋. 具有低度恶性潜能的多房囊性肾肿瘤的临床病理特征及预后[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 661-666.
[4]	周泽臻,邓绍晖,颜野,张帆,郝一昌,葛力源,张洪宪,王国良,张树栋. 非转移性T_3a肾细胞癌患者3年肿瘤特异性生存期预测[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 673-679.
[5]	方杨毅,李强,黄志高,陆敏,洪锴,张树栋. 睾丸鞘膜高分化乳头状间皮肿瘤1例[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 741-744.
[6]	曾媛媛,谢云,陈道南,王瑞兰. 脓毒症患者发生正常甲状腺性病态综合征的相关因素[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(3): 526-532.
[7]	苏俊琪,王晓颖,孙志强. 舌鳞状细胞癌根治性切除术后患者预后预测列线图的构建与验证[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(1): 120-130.
[8]	李建斌,吕梦娜,池强,彭一琳,刘鹏程,吴锐. 干燥综合征患者发生重症新型冠状病毒肺炎的早期预测[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(6): 1007-1012.
[9]	刘欢锐,彭祥,李森林,苟欣. 基于HER-2相关基因构建风险模型用于膀胱癌生存预后评估[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(5): 793-801.
[10]	薛子璇,唐世英,邱敏,刘承,田晓军,陆敏,董靖晗,马潞林,张树栋. 青年肾肿瘤伴瘤栓的临床病理特征及预后分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(5): 802-811.
[11]	卢汉,张建运,杨榕,徐乐,李庆祥,郭玉兴,郭传瑸. 下颌牙龈鳞状细胞癌患者预后的影响因素[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(4): 702-707.
[12]	裴喜燕,阳雯,欧阳翔英,孙凤. 牙周内窥镜下根面清创与牙周翻瓣术疗效比较[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(4): 716-720.
[13]	时云飞,王豪杰,刘卫平,米岚,龙孟平,刘雁飞,赖玉梅,周立新,刁新婷,李向红. 血管免疫母细胞性T细胞淋巴瘤临床与分子病理学特征分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(3): 521-529.
[14]	朱晓娟,张虹,张爽,李东,李鑫,徐玲,李挺. 人表皮生长因子受体2低表达乳腺癌的临床病理学特征及预后[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(2): 243-253.
[15]	赖玉梅,李忠武,李欢,吴艳,时云飞,周立新,楼雨彤,崔传亮. 68例肛管直肠黏膜黑色素瘤临床病理特征及预后[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(2): 262-269.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Characteristics	Non-TL group (n=216)	TL group (n=17)	P
Age/years	41.51±9.92	42.53±5.60	0.677
Gender, n(%)			0.156
Female	102 (47.22)	5 (29.41)
Male	114 (52.78)	12 (70.59)
Smoking status, n(%)			0.466
Non-smoker	169 (78.24)	12 (70.59)
Smoker	47 (21.76)	5 (29.41)
PD_max/mm	4.26±1.57	6.65±2.37	<0.001
Plaque index, n(%)
≤2	46 (21.30)	1 (5.88)
=3	170 (78.70)	16 (94.12)
AL/mm	3.29±2.38	4.18±2.89	0.219
FI_max, n(%)			<0.001
0	59 (27.31)	4 (23.53)
Ⅰ	48 (22.22)	0
Ⅱ	100 (46.30)	7 (41.18)
Ⅲ	9 (4.17)	4 (23.53)
Ⅳ	0	2 (11.76)
BI_max, n(%)			0.383
0	5 (2.31)	0
1	0	0
2	24 (11.11)	1 (5.88)
3	68 (31.48)	3 (17.65)
4	119 (55.09)	13 (76.47)
Mobility, n(%)			<0.001
0	166 (76.85)	2 (11.76)
Ⅰ	28 (12.96)	5 (29.41)
Ⅱ	21 (9.72)	7 (41.18)
Ⅲ	1 (0.46)	3 (17.65)
Vertical bone resorption/%	11.48±11.28	29.79±16.20	<0.001
Bone resorption area/%	1.29±2.55	3.63±2.90	<0.001

	Non-TL group (n=216)	TL group (n=17)	Univariate analysis		Multivariable analysis
	Non-TL group (n=216)	TL group (n=17)	P	HR (95%CI)	P	HR (95%CI)
PD_max/mm	4.26±1.57	6.65±2.37	<0.001	1.63 (1.34, 1.98)	<0.001	1.63 (1.33, 1.99)
FI_max, n(%)
0	59 (27.31)	4 (23.53)
Ⅰ	48 (22.22)	0	0.997	0.00 (0.00, Inf)	0.010	0.00 (0.00, Inf)
Ⅱ	100 (46.30)	7 (41.18)	0.990	1.01 (0.29, 3.44)	0.867	1.11 (0.00, Inf)
Ⅲ	9 (4.17)	4 (23.53)	0.017	5,47 (1.36, 22.01)	0.002	12.80 (2.57, 63.72)
Ⅳ	0	2 (11.76)	0.007	10.59 (1.92,58.46)	0.002	22.85 (3.23, 161.68)
BI_max, n(%)
<4	97 (44.91)	4 (23.53)
=4	119 (55.09)	13 (76.47)	0.042	3.22 (1.04, 9.93)
Mobility, n(%)
0	166 (76.85)	2 (11.76)
Ⅰ	28 (12.96)	5 (29.41)	0.006	9.99 (1.93, 51.62)	0.002	15.70 (2.71, 91.1)
Ⅱ	21 (9,72)	7 (41.18)	<0.001	28.50 (5.85, 138.74)	<0.001	38.91 (7.16, 211.46)
Ⅲ	1 (0.46)	3 (17.65)	<0.001	66.51 (11.10, 398.57)	<0.001	76.12 (10.77, 537.97)
Vertical bone resorption/%	11.48±11.28	29.79±16.20	<0.001	1.08 (1.05, 1.11)	<0.001	1.09 (1.06, 1.12)
Bone resorption area/%	1.29±2.55	3.63±2.90	<0.001	1.22 (1.10, 1.35)	<0.001	1.29 (1.14, 1.46)