| Literature DB >> 24348724 |
Zhou Jincao1, Wu Zhongchao1, Chen Zhongjie1, Zhao Xiaoguang1, Hu Jing1, Jiao Yue1, Li Guiran1, Pang Li1.
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate the effect of acupuncture on endemic skeletal fluorosis (ESF) through the randomized controlled trial. Methods. Ninety-nine cases were divided into the treatment group (68 cases) and the control group (31 cases) randomly. Normal acupuncture combined with electroacupuncture was used in treatment group, while Caltrate with vitamin D tablets were applied in control group. After 2 courses, the VAS, urinary fluoride, serum calcium, and serum phosphate were evaluated before and after treatment. Results. Both of these two methods could relieve pain effectively and the effect of acupuncture was better (P < 0.05). In treatment group, the content of urinary fluoride after treatment was higher than before (P < 0.05), while the content of serum calcium and phosphate was lower (P < 0.05). Conclusion. The effect of acupuncture on relieving pain and promoting discharge of urinary fluoride is better than that of western medicine. Acupuncture can reduce the content of serum calcium and phosphate.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24348724 PMCID: PMC3855966 DOI: 10.1155/2013/839132
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1The VAS ruler. VAS scores were measured before and after treatment in both groups.
Figure 2VAS before and after treatment in two groups. **P < 0.01, compared with that before treatment; ## P < 0.01, compared with control group.
Figure 3Urinary fluoride before and after treatment in two groups. *P < 0.05, compared with that before treatment; # P < 0.05, compared with control group.
Figure 4Serum Calcium before and after treatment in two groups. *P < 0.05, compared with that before treatment.
Figure 5Serum Phosphorus before and after treatment in two groups. *P < 0.05, compared with that before treatment.
(a)
| Group | Cases | Water fluoride ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | 68 | 4.48 ± 1.44 | −1.002 | −0.316 |
| Control group | 31 | 4.88 ± 1.73 |
(b)
| Group | Cases | Time of residence ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | 68 | 44.21 ± 16.72 | −0.151 | 0.88 |
| Control group | 31 | 44.65 ± 17.44 |
(c)
| Group | Cases | Labor intensity ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | 68 | 1.75 ± 0.72 | −1.22 | 0.219 |
| Control group | 31 | 1.58 ± 0.77 |