Понятие биотипа десны был использован как предиктор результатов пародонтальной терапии с 1980 года. В настоящем исследовании, контролируемые клинические эксперименты проводились для сравнения глубины пародонтальных карманов (PPD) и рецессию десны (GSH) после чистки с ультразвуком и закрытого кюретажа (SRP) в соответствии с десневым биотипом.
Двадцати пяти пациентам с диагнозом хронический периодонтит были замерены и сфотографированы передние зубы верхней челюсти (от клыка до клыка) до процедур и через 3 месяца после УЗ чистки и закрытого кюретажа.
Вывод:
Биотип десны никак не влияет на результаты пародонтального лечения (глубина карманов, рецессия десны) с использованием ультразвукого скейлинга и закрытого кюретажа.
J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2013 Dec;43(6):283-90
Association of gingival biotype with the results of scaling and root planing.
Sin YW, Chang HY, Yun WH, Jeong SN, Pi SH, You HK.
Респект и уважуха авторам за возможность скачать статью целиком!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24455441
Abstract
PURPOSE:
The concept of gingival biotype has been used as a predictor of periodontal therapy outcomes since the 1980s. In the present study, prospective and controlled experiments were performed to compare periodontal pocket depth (PPD) reduction and gingival shrinkage (GSH) after scaling and root planing (SRP) according to gingival biotype.
METHODS:
Twenty-five patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis participated in the present study. The PPD and GSH of the labial side of the maxillary anterior teeth (from the right canine to the left canine) were evaluated at baseline and 3 months after SRP. Changes in the PPD following SRP were classified into 4 groups according to the gingival thickness and initial PPD. Two more groups representing normal gingival crevices were added in evaluation of the GSH. The results were statistically analyzed using the independent t-test.
RESULTS:
In the end, 16 patients participated in the present study. With regard to PPD reduction, there were no significant differences according to gingival biotype (P>0.05). Likewise, sites with a PPD of over 3 mm failed to show any significant differences in the GSH (P>0.05). However, among the sites with a PPD of under 3 mm, those with the thin gingival biotype showed more GSH (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: PPD changes after SRP were not affected by gingival biotype with either shallow or deep periodontal pockets. GSH also showed equal outcomes in all the groups without normal gingival crevices. The results of SRP seem not to differ according to gingival biotype.
