http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Jinlin Song (검색결과 3 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Chen, Jin,Chen, Qian,Hu, Bo,Wang, Yunji,Song, Jinlin Korean Academy of Periodontology 2016 Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science Vol.46 No.6
Purpose: Alendronate has been proposed as a local and systemic drug treatment used as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) for the treatment of periodontitis. However, its effectiveness has yet to be conclusively established. The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of SRP with alendronate on periodontitis compared to SRP alone. Methods: Five electronic databases were used by 2 independent reviewers to identify relevant articles from the earliest records up to September 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SRP with alendronate to SRP with placebo in the treatment of periodontitis were included. The outcome measures were changes in bone defect fill, probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) from baseline to 6 months. A fixed-effect or random-effect model was used to pool the extracted data, as appropriate. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane ${\chi}^2$ and $I^2$ tests. Results: After the selection process, 8 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with SRP alone, the adjunctive mean benefits of locally delivered alendronate were 38.25% for bone defect fill increase (95% CI=33.05%-43.45%; P<0.001; $I^2=94.0%$), 2.29 mm for PD reduction (95% CI=2.07-2.52 mm; P<0.001; $I^2=0.0%$) and 1.92 mm for CAL gain (95% CI=1.55-2.30 mm; P<0.001; $I^2=66.0%$). In addition, systemically administered alendronate with SRP significantly reduced PD by 0.36 mm (95% CI=0.18-0.55 mm; P<0.001; $I^2=0.0%$) and increased CAL by 0.39 mm (95% CI=0.11-0.68 mm; P=0.006; $I^2=6.0%$). Conclusions: The collective evidence regarding the adjunctive use of alendronate locally and systemically with SRP indicates that the combined treatment can improve the efficacy of non-surgical periodontal therapy on increasing CAL and bone defect fill and reducing PD. However, precautions must be exercised in interpreting these results, and multicenter studies evaluating this specific application should be carried out.
-
Jin Chen,Qian Chen,Bo Hu,Yunji Wang,Jinlin Song 대한치주과학회 2016 Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science Vol.46 No.6
Purpose: Alendronate has been proposed as a local and systemic drug treatment used as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) for the treatment of periodontitis. However, its effectiveness has yet to be conclusively established. The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of SRP with alendronate on periodontitis compared to SRP alone. Methods: Five electronic databases were used by 2 independent reviewers to identify relevant articles from the earliest records up to September 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SRP with alendronate to SRP with placebo in the treatment of periodontitis were included. The outcome measures were changes in bone defect fill, probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) from baseline to 6 months. A fixed-effect or random-effect model was used to pool the extracted data, as appropriate. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane χ2 and I2 tests. Results: After the selection process, 8 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with SRP alone, the adjunctive mean benefits of locally delivered alendronate were 38.25% for bone defect fill increase (95% CI=33.05%–43.45%; P<0.001; I2=94.0%), 2.29 mm for PD reduction (95% CI=2.07–2.52 mm; P<0.001; I2=0.0%) and 1.92 mm for CAL gain (95% CI=1.55–2.30 mm; P<0.001; I2=66.0%). In addition, systemically administered alendronate with SRP significantly reduced PD by 0.36 mm (95% CI=0.18–0.55 mm; P<0.001; I2=0.0%) and increased CAL by 0.39 mm (95% CI=0.11–0.68 mm; P=0.006; I2=6.0%). Conclusions: The collective evidence regarding the adjunctive use of alendronate locally and systemically with SRP indicates that the combined treatment can improve the efficacy of non-surgical periodontal therapy on increasing CAL and bone defect fill and reducing PD. However, precautions must be exercised in interpreting these results, and multicenter studies evaluating this specific application should be carried out.
-
Zhu, Mengyuan,Zhao, Meilin,Hu, Bo,Wang, Yunji,Li, Yao,Song, Jinlin Korean Academy of Periodontology 2021 Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science Vol.51 No.3
Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effects of glycine powder air-polishing (GPAP) in patients during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) compared to hand instrumentation and ultrasonic scaling. Methods: The authors searched for randomized clinical trials in 8 electronic databases for relevant studies through November 15, 2019. The eligibility criteria were as follows: population, patients with chronic periodontitis undergoing SPT; intervention and comparison, patients treated by GPAP with a standard/nozzle type jet or mechanical instrumentation; and outcomes, bleeding on probing (BOP), patient discomfort/pain (assessed by a visual analogue scale [VAS]), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (Rec), plaque index (PI), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival epithelium score, and subgingival bacteria count. After extracting the data and assessing the risk of bias, the authors performed the meta-analysis. Results: In total, 17 studies were included in this study. The difference of means for BOP in patients who received GPAP was lower (difference of means: -8.02%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12.10% to -3.95%; P<0.00001; I<sup>2</sup>=10%) than that in patients treated with hand instrumentation. The results of patient discomfort/pain measured by a VAS (difference of means: -1.48, 95% CI, -1.90 to -1.06; P<0.001; I<sup>2</sup>=83%) indicated that treatment with GPAP might be less painful than ultrasonic scaling. The results of PD, Rec, PI, and CAL showed that GPAP had no advantage over hand instrumentation or ultrasonic scaling. Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that GPAP may alleviate gingival inflammation more effectively and be less painful than traditional methods, which makes it a promising alternative for dental clinical use. With regards to PD, Rec, PI, and CAL, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference among GPAP, hand instrumentation, and ultrasonic scaling. Higher-quality studies are still needed to assess the effects of GPAP.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
