中国医药导报
中國醫藥導報
중국의약도보
CHINA MEDICAL HERALD
2015年
15期
113-116
,共4页
口腔显微镜%老年磨牙%根管治疗%根管遗漏
口腔顯微鏡%老年磨牙%根管治療%根管遺漏
구강현미경%노년마아%근관치료%근관유루
Oral operating microscope%Elderly molars%Root canal therapy%Omissions of root canal
目的:探讨口腔显微镜对于减少老年根管治疗期间磨牙根管遗漏的临床意义。方法选取解放军第451医院2011年4月~2014年7月收治的接受根管治疗的老年患者184例,将其随机分为常规组和显微根管治疗组(DOM组),分别进行常规根管治疗和DOM根管治疗,对两组老年患者根管遗漏情况进行统计分析。对所有患者进行1年随访,观察老年患者的磨牙治疗及根管遗漏情况。结果常规组检出4根根管为14例(15.22%),与DOM组28例(30.43%)相比,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);常规组检出5根根管0例(0.00%),与DOM组4例(4.35%)比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。常规组治疗失败6例(6.52%),DOM组治疗失败2例(2.17%),两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论应用DOM对老年磨牙患者进行根管治疗可有效减少磨牙根管遗漏率,值得临床推广使用。
目的:探討口腔顯微鏡對于減少老年根管治療期間磨牙根管遺漏的臨床意義。方法選取解放軍第451醫院2011年4月~2014年7月收治的接受根管治療的老年患者184例,將其隨機分為常規組和顯微根管治療組(DOM組),分彆進行常規根管治療和DOM根管治療,對兩組老年患者根管遺漏情況進行統計分析。對所有患者進行1年隨訪,觀察老年患者的磨牙治療及根管遺漏情況。結果常規組檢齣4根根管為14例(15.22%),與DOM組28例(30.43%)相比,差異有統計學意義(P<0.05);常規組檢齣5根根管0例(0.00%),與DOM組4例(4.35%)比較,差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)。常規組治療失敗6例(6.52%),DOM組治療失敗2例(2.17%),兩組比較,差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)。結論應用DOM對老年磨牙患者進行根管治療可有效減少磨牙根管遺漏率,值得臨床推廣使用。
목적:탐토구강현미경대우감소노년근관치료기간마아근관유루적림상의의。방법선취해방군제451의원2011년4월~2014년7월수치적접수근관치료적노년환자184례,장기수궤분위상규조화현미근관치료조(DOM조),분별진행상규근관치료화DOM근관치료,대량조노년환자근관유루정황진행통계분석。대소유환자진행1년수방,관찰노년환자적마아치료급근관유루정황。결과상규조검출4근근관위14례(15.22%),여DOM조28례(30.43%)상비,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05);상규조검출5근근관0례(0.00%),여DOM조4례(4.35%)비교,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。상규조치료실패6례(6.52%),DOM조치료실패2례(2.17%),량조비교,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론응용DOM대노년마아환자진행근관치료가유효감소마아근관유루솔,치득림상추엄사용。
Objective To discuss the clinical effect of dental operating microscope for reducing the omission of molars root canal in elderly patients during the treatment of root canal. Methods 184 cases of elderly patients who had re-ceived molars root canal treatment in the 451st Hospital of People's Liberation Army from April 2011 to July 2014 were selected. All the patients were divided into conventional group and DOM group, the conventional group was treat-ed with normal root canal therapy and the DOM group was treated with DOM root canal therapy. The incidence of root canal omission was analyzed. Then all the patients were followed up for 1 year, treatment of root canal and the inci-dence of root canal omission were observed. Results 14 cases of patients (15.22%) of the conventional group and 28 cases (30.43%) of the DOM group were detected with 4 root canals, which showed a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). None of the patients (0.00%) of conventional group and 4 cases (4.35%) of the DOM group were detected with 5 root canals, which showed a statistically significant difference (P< 0.05). 6 cases (6.52%) of conventional group failed in the root canal treatment, while 2 cases (2.17%) of DOM group failed in the root canal treatment, which showed a sta-tistically significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion Apply DOM in the treatment of root canal can help lessen omission of molars root canal in elderly patients, and it is worthy of clinical application.