CAJ | 학술논문

目的：探讨比较一次性根管治疗术和常规根管治疗术治疗根尖周炎的疗效。方法：在本院选取2011年7月1日-2012年1月1日收治的患有根尖周炎患者174例。将患者随机数字表法分为两组，每组87例患者，其中采用一次性根管治疗术治疗根尖周炎为观察组，常规根管治疗为对照组。观察比较两组患者在治疗过程中所产生的疼痛程度级别，并追踪记录两组患者在治疗1年后的有效率。结果：观察组中有83例患者为0级疼痛，2例1级疼痛，2例2级疼痛，疼痛发生率为4.60%；对照组中82例患者为0级疼痛，3例患者1级疼痛，2例患者2级疼痛，疼痛发生率为5.75%，两组患者疼痛级别差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。两组患者在接受1年后继续跟踪观察，其中观察组67例患者显效，有效18例，无效2例，有效率为97.80%；对照组显效67例，19例患者有效，无效1例，有效率为98.90%。两组患者有效率比较，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论：对于根尖周炎患者，采用一次性根管治疗术与常规根管治疗术治疗均能得到较高的有效率，但是一次性根管治疗可大大减轻患者的疼痛，有助于患者的治疗，值得广泛应用及推广。
목적：탐토비교일차성근관치료술화상규근관치료술치료근첨주염적료효。방법：재본원선취2011년7월1일-2012년1월1일수치적환유근첨주염환자174례。장환자수궤수자표법분위량조，매조87례환자，기중채용일차성근관치료술치료근첨주염위관찰조，상규근관치료위대조조。관찰비교량조환자재치료과정중소산생적동통정도급별，병추종기록량조환자재치료1년후적유효솔。결과：관찰조중유83례환자위0급동통，2례1급동통，2례2급동통，동통발생솔위4.60%；대조조중82례환자위0급동통，3례환자1급동통，2례환자2급동통，동통발생솔위5.75%，량조환자동통급별차이무통계학의의（P>0.05）。량조환자재접수1년후계속근종관찰，기중관찰조67례환자현효，유효18례，무효2례，유효솔위97.80%；대조조현효67례，19례환자유효，무효1례，유효솔위98.90%。량조환자유효솔비교，차이무통계학의의（P>0.05）。결론：대우근첨주염환자，채용일차성근관치료술여상규근관치료술치료균능득도교고적유효솔，단시일차성근관치료가대대감경환자적동통，유조우환자적치료，치득엄범응용급추엄。
Objective:To explore and compare the efficacy of disposable root canal therapy and conventional root canal therapy treated in periapical.Method: 174 patients who were selected from our hospital during July 1, 2012 and January 1, 2014 were divided into two groups (control group and observation group) randomly, and each group contained 87 cases. The observation group was treated by disposable root canal therapy, and the control group was treated by conventional root canal therapy, and then to compare the pain degree between the two groups during the treatment, and record and compare the effectiveness of the two groups in the following year.Result: In the observation group, 83 cases belonged to 0 degree pain, 2 cases belonged to 1 degree pain, 2 cases belonged to 2 degree pain, pain incidence was 4.6%. In the control group,82 cases belonged to 0 degree pain,3 cases cases belonged to 2 degree pain, 2 cases belonged to 2 degree pain, pain incidence was 5.7%, and the difference was not significant (P>0.05). After a year follow-up, in the observation group, the cured number of patients was 67, the effective number of patients was 18, the invalid number of patients was 1, the effective rate was 97.8%. In the control group, the cured number of patients was 67, the effective number of patients was 19, the invalid number of patients was 2, the effective rate was 98.9%, and the difference was not significant (P>0.05).Conclusion: For periapical patients, disposable root canal therapy and conventional root canal therapy all can get a good efficiency, but disposable root canal therapy can greatly reduce the patients’ pain and is helpful for patient’s recovery, so it is worth to promote in clinical.