摘要
目的:比较不同涂擦方式下脱敏牙膏对牙本质小管的封闭效果。方法:制备56个牙本质敏感模型,并将其随机分为1个空白对照组和6个实验组(n=8),实验组具体分组为:先分成3大组(普通牙膏组、冷酸灵牙膏组、舒适达牙膏组),然后再将每1大组各分为2个亚组(n=8):一组用示指指腹涂擦法,另一组用牙刷涂刷法。按上述分组对各实验组进行相应处理后,用SEM观察所有样本的牙本质小管封闭情况,并计算其牙本质小管的堵塞率和堵塞深度。结果:冷酸灵和舒适达在两种不同涂刷方式下均能有效封闭牙本质小管,分别与普通牙膏组和空白对照组相比均有统计学差异(P<0.05);同一种脱敏牙膏组内不同涂擦方式相比,均为示指涂擦组的牙本质小管封闭率高于牙刷涂刷组(P<0.05),但同一种涂擦方式下两种脱敏牙膏间的封闭率相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:测试牙膏(舒适达和冷酸灵)在两种涂擦方式下均能有效封闭牙本质小管,且示指涂擦法优于牙刷涂刷法。
AIM： To Compare the effect of dentine tubule occlusion between desensitizing toothpastes and common toothpaste（ Cret salt whitening toothpaste） with different brushing methods. METHODS： 56 dentine sensitive models were prepared from 56 third molars. All the models were randomly divided into 1 control group,and 6 experimental groups（ n = 8）. The samples in the experimental groups were treated by Crest,Lessening and Sensodyne toothpaste with forefinger infriction and toothbrush infriction respectively. After treatment SEM was used to observe all the samples. The plugging rate and infiltration depths were calculated. RESULTES： Both of the 2 desensitizing toothpastes could effectively occlude dentin tubules when compared to other 2 groups（ P〈0. 05）,meanwhile forefinger infriction was more effective than toothbrush infriction（ P〈0. 05）. However,there was no significant difference between the 2 desensitizing toothpastes（ P〉0. 05）. CONCLUSION： Desensitizing toothpastes can effectively occlude dentine tubules,forefinger infriction is more effective than the toothbrush method.
出处
《牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志》
CAS
2017年第10期569-573,共5页
Chinese Journal of Conservative Dentistry
基金
黑龙江省自然科学基金(D214)
关键词
牙本质过敏症
脱敏牙膏
堵塞率
堵塞深度
示指涂擦法
dentinal hypersensitivity
desensitizing toothpaste
plugging rate
infiltration depths
forefingerbrushing method
