全科口腔医学电子杂志
全科口腔醫學電子雜誌
전과구강의학전자잡지
2014年
1期
18-22
,共5页
孔令佳%景泉%万阔%谢嫣%陈曦
孔令佳%景泉%萬闊%謝嫣%陳晞
공령가%경천%만활%사언%진희
口腔治疗焦虑%镇静%咪达唑仑%静脉输注
口腔治療焦慮%鎮靜%咪達唑崙%靜脈輸註
구강치료초필%진정%미체서륜%정맥수주
Dental anxiety%sedation%midazolam%intravenous infusion
目的:评价不同咪达唑仑静脉镇静程度在口腔治疗焦虑病人阻生智齿拔除术中的有效性、安全性和实用性的差异。方法运用自身对照研究,入选病人双侧智齿需要拔除且难度相当,门诊进行治疗,每个病人首先随机的采用咪达唑仑静脉镇静较浅镇静程度拔除一侧智齿,1个月后,在较深的镇静程度下拔除另一侧智齿。评估指标包括病人的生命体征,医生的工作状态,镇静程度(O A A/S),病人主观对于疼痛和焦虑的评价(VA S P、VA S A)以及病人最终满意度评分。结果23名病人的智齿均成功拔除。浅镇静组的药物剂量使用相对少。深镇静组则出现了更多的血氧饱和度低于95%的情况(P<0.05)。两组之间在医生操作满意度评分、VA S A、VA S P和病人最终满意度评分方面没有明显差异(P>0.05)。结论较浅的镇静程度保证了口腔治疗的安全性,在能够保证口腔治疗顺利完成的前提下,应尽量采用较浅的镇静程度辅助治疗。
目的:評價不同咪達唑崙靜脈鎮靜程度在口腔治療焦慮病人阻生智齒拔除術中的有效性、安全性和實用性的差異。方法運用自身對照研究,入選病人雙側智齒需要拔除且難度相噹,門診進行治療,每箇病人首先隨機的採用咪達唑崙靜脈鎮靜較淺鎮靜程度拔除一側智齒,1箇月後,在較深的鎮靜程度下拔除另一側智齒。評估指標包括病人的生命體徵,醫生的工作狀態,鎮靜程度(O A A/S),病人主觀對于疼痛和焦慮的評價(VA S P、VA S A)以及病人最終滿意度評分。結果23名病人的智齒均成功拔除。淺鎮靜組的藥物劑量使用相對少。深鎮靜組則齣現瞭更多的血氧飽和度低于95%的情況(P<0.05)。兩組之間在醫生操作滿意度評分、VA S A、VA S P和病人最終滿意度評分方麵沒有明顯差異(P>0.05)。結論較淺的鎮靜程度保證瞭口腔治療的安全性,在能夠保證口腔治療順利完成的前提下,應儘量採用較淺的鎮靜程度輔助治療。
목적:평개불동미체서륜정맥진정정도재구강치료초필병인조생지치발제술중적유효성、안전성화실용성적차이。방법운용자신대조연구,입선병인쌍측지치수요발제차난도상당,문진진행치료,매개병인수선수궤적채용미체서륜정맥진정교천진정정도발제일측지치,1개월후,재교심적진정정도하발제령일측지치。평고지표포괄병인적생명체정,의생적공작상태,진정정도(O A A/S),병인주관대우동통화초필적평개(VA S P、VA S A)이급병인최종만의도평분。결과23명병인적지치균성공발제。천진정조적약물제량사용상대소。심진정조칙출현료경다적혈양포화도저우95%적정황(P<0.05)。량조지간재의생조작만의도평분、VA S A、VA S P화병인최종만의도평분방면몰유명현차이(P>0.05)。결론교천적진정정도보증료구강치료적안전성,재능구보증구강치료순리완성적전제하,응진량채용교천적진정정도보조치료。
Objective To evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness, safety and practicability of different midazolam intravenous sedation degrees in mandibular third molar operation for dental fear patients. Methods In this self control trial, all patients had bilateral mandibular third molar which need surgical removal, and the difficulty of operation on both sides were similar. For each patient, randomly, on tooth was removed under light sedation degree, one month later, the other tooth was removed under deep sedation degree. The patients' vital signs, dentist's working conditions, patients' subjective evaluation to anxiety and pain during the procedures and final satisfaction were collected and compared statistically. Results 23 patients successfully managed throughout the experiment. There were no severe complications observed. The light sedation degree group consumed less midazolam and the deep sedation degree group showed more SO2%descend below 95%(P<0.05). There were no difference about dentist's working conditions, patients' subjective evaluation to anxiety and pain during the procedures and final satisfaction between the groups(P>0.05). Conclusions Owning to its safety, the light sedation degree should be always preferred, once the dental treatment can be conducted favorably.