| Literature DB >> 36051933 |
Jinhong Guo1, Ying Li2, Xuandong Lin1, Xiaomei Yang1, Wei Shi1, Xiaoling Lu1.
Abstract
Objective: This study used a retrospective method to explore the relevant factors affecting the prognosis of periodontal-endodontic combined lesions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36051933 PMCID: PMC9424022 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5042097
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Figure 1Participant screening process.
General information for patients ( ± s).
| Characteristics | General information ( |
|---|---|
| Gender (male/female) | 42/32 |
| Age (years) | 47.54 ± 9.68 |
| BMI | 21.85 ± 3.21 |
| Disease course (month) | 7.23 ± 4.2 |
Figure 2(a) The photo of the patient at the time of operation; (b) the apical sheet; and (c) the X-ray film at the initial diagnosis.
Grouping criteria for patient response.
| Degree | Characteristics |
|---|---|
| Cure | The patient has no symptoms, and the chewing function has improved. Clinical examination showed no gingival swelling, SBI <1, PD <3 mm, no increase in CAL, decrease in TM, no sinus or fistula on the buccal and lingual side, no percussion pain, and no shadow in the apical area on X-ray films. The alveolar bone density was normal |
|
| |
| Improve | The patient had no symptoms, and the chewing function improved. Clinical examination showed mild inflammation of the affected teeth and gingiva, PD <4 mm, SBI <2, no increase in CAL, decrease in TM, no sinus or fistula on the buccal and lingual side, no percussion pain, and X-ray showed that PAl was decreased and less than or equal to 1 |
|
| |
| Invalid | The lesion continues to progress, the patient has conscious symptoms, and the teeth cannot drive to the normal chewing function. On clinical examination, the gums was red and swollen, PD >5 mm, increased CAL, SBI >3, TM, unchanged or enlargement of the sinus or fistula hole, percussion pain (+), X-ray showed the presence of shadows in the apical area and PAl |
Among them, “cure” and “improve” are recorded as the effective group, and “invalid” is the invalid ineffective group.
Figure 3Comparison of the periodontal index of the initial diagnosis between the effective teeth and invalid teeth. : Statistical difference compared with the effective teeth (P < 0.05).
Figure 4Comparison of X-ray findings between effective teeth and invalid teeth. : Statistical difference compared with the CR (P < 0.05).
Comparison of periodontal clinical indicators between effective and ineffective teeth .
| Characteristics | Clinical index | Effective tooth | Invalid tooth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | PD | 5.07 ± 1.25 | 4.64 ± 0.75 |
| CAL | 3.25 ± 0.46 | 3.74 ± 0.24 | |
| SBI | 4.35 ± 0.95 | 4.18 ± 1.06 | |
| OHI-S | 3.15 ± 0.16 | 3.47 ± 0.32 | |
|
| |||
| 3 months after treatment | PD | 3.56 ± 1.01 | 3.74 ± 1.48 |
| CAL | 2.67 ± 0.75 | 2.53 ± 1.01 | |
| SBI | 0.76 ± 0.12 | 1.25 ± 0.86 | |
| OHI-S | 1.25 ± 0.48 | 1.67 ± 0.47 | |
|
| |||
| 6 months after treatment | PD | 2.82 ± 1.08 | 3.21 ± 1.21 |
| CAL | 1.64 ± 0.76 | 1.82 ± 1.02 | |
| SBI | 0.58 ± 0.32 | 0.92 ± 0.42 | |
| OHI-S | 0.72 ± 0.13 | 1.02 ± 0.72 | |