国际医药卫生导报
國際醫藥衛生導報
국제의약위생도보
INTERNATIONAL MEDICINE & HEALTH GUIDANCE NEWS
2014年
2期
215-217
,共3页
慢性根尖周炎%一次性根管治疗%远期疗效
慢性根尖週炎%一次性根管治療%遠期療效
만성근첨주염%일차성근관치료%원기료효
Chronic apical periodontitis%One-visit root canal therapy%Long-term effect
目的 观察分析慢性根尖周炎一次性根管治疗的长期疗效,评价慢性根尖周炎一次性根管治疗的临床可行性.方法 选取临床诊断为慢性根尖周炎的磨牙228颗为研究对象.120颗患牙在一次治疗内完成去除腐质、清理髓腔、根管预备和根管充填,设为Ⅰ组;108颗患牙经3次治疗后完成根管充填(第一次去除腐质,髓腔清理后封CP一周,第二次根管预备后封氢氧化钙1周,第三次完成根管充填),设为Ⅱ组.两组均采用冠向下技术预备根管,3％的次氯酸钠和17％的EDTA冲洗根管,侧向加压法充填根管.术后2年随访,比较两组的临床疗效.结果 Ⅰ组根管治疗的成功率88.79％ (95/120);Ⅱ组根管治疗的成功率92.08％(93/108).x 2检验结果显示两组疗效差异没有统计学意义(x 2=0.649,P＞0.05).结论 慢性根尖周炎根管治疗采用一次法或多次法完成,其长期疗效并无区别.
目的 觀察分析慢性根尖週炎一次性根管治療的長期療效,評價慢性根尖週炎一次性根管治療的臨床可行性.方法 選取臨床診斷為慢性根尖週炎的磨牙228顆為研究對象.120顆患牙在一次治療內完成去除腐質、清理髓腔、根管預備和根管充填,設為Ⅰ組;108顆患牙經3次治療後完成根管充填(第一次去除腐質,髓腔清理後封CP一週,第二次根管預備後封氫氧化鈣1週,第三次完成根管充填),設為Ⅱ組.兩組均採用冠嚮下技術預備根管,3％的次氯痠鈉和17％的EDTA遲洗根管,側嚮加壓法充填根管.術後2年隨訪,比較兩組的臨床療效.結果 Ⅰ組根管治療的成功率88.79％ (95/120);Ⅱ組根管治療的成功率92.08％(93/108).x 2檢驗結果顯示兩組療效差異沒有統計學意義(x 2=0.649,P＞0.05).結論 慢性根尖週炎根管治療採用一次法或多次法完成,其長期療效併無區彆.
목적 관찰분석만성근첨주염일차성근관치료적장기료효,평개만성근첨주염일차성근관치료적림상가행성.방법 선취림상진단위만성근첨주염적마아228과위연구대상.120과환아재일차치료내완성거제부질、청리수강、근관예비화근관충전,설위Ⅰ조;108과환아경3차치료후완성근관충전(제일차거제부질,수강청리후봉CP일주,제이차근관예비후봉경양화개1주,제삼차완성근관충전),설위Ⅱ조.량조균채용관향하기술예비근관,3％적차록산납화17％적EDTA충세근관,측향가압법충전근관.술후2년수방,비교량조적림상료효.결과 Ⅰ조근관치료적성공솔88.79％ (95/120);Ⅱ조근관치료적성공솔92.08％(93/108).x 2검험결과현시량조료효차이몰유통계학의의(x 2=0.649,P＞0.05).결론 만성근첨주염근관치료채용일차법혹다차법완성,기장기료효병무구별.
Objective To observe long-term effect and evaluate clinical feasibility of one-visit root canal therapy in chronic apical periodontitis.Methods 228 molars with chronic apical periodontitis were selected.Group Ⅰ (120 molars) was treated by one-visit root canal therapy,while group Ⅱ (108 molars) was treated with multi-visit root canal therapy.Two groups both took crown down root canal preparation method,root canals irrigated with 0.3％ sodium hypochlorite and 17％ EDTA and obturated by means of lateral condensation technique.A comparison of clinical effect was done between two groups after 2 years.Result The cure rate of group Ⅰ was 88.79％ (95/120),while that of group Ⅱ was 92.08％ (93/108),without statistical difference between two groups (x 2 =0.649,P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion There was no difference in long-term treatment effect between two kinds of treatment methods.
