国际口腔医学杂志
國際口腔醫學雜誌
국제구강의학잡지
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL STOMATOLOGY
2015年
5期
542-544
,共3页
李文超%阮宁%雷博程%林扬%张美娜
李文超%阮寧%雷博程%林颺%張美娜
리문초%원저%뢰박정%림양%장미나
冲击法%撬拔法%牙根
遲擊法%撬拔法%牙根
충격법%효발법%아근
shock method%lever method%tooth root
目的:???比较牙挺冲击法和撬拔法在牙周间隙减小的牙根拔除术中的临床效果。方法??收集多个牙位的单根牙牙根140个,随机分成2组,牙挺冲击法组72个,牙挺撬拔法组68个。分别记录手术时间,比较手术时间和手术并发症的情况。结果???牙挺冲击法和撬拔法拔除牙根的手术时间分别为(2.15±0.55)min及(4.03±0.88)min (P<0.01)。术中牙龈撕裂和牙槽突骨折的发生率2组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),术中断根的发生率2种手术方法差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。应用牙挺冲击法术后疼痛的发生率低于牙挺撬拔法(P<0.05)且上皮覆盖拔牙创的时间较应用牙挺撬拔法短(P<0.01)。2种手术方法术后均未见出血病例,应用牙挺撬拔法发生干槽症的患者有1例。结论???采用牙挺冲击法拔除牙根的手术时间短、并发症少,有利于拔牙创的愈合。
目的:???比較牙挺遲擊法和撬拔法在牙週間隙減小的牙根拔除術中的臨床效果。方法??收集多箇牙位的單根牙牙根140箇,隨機分成2組,牙挺遲擊法組72箇,牙挺撬拔法組68箇。分彆記錄手術時間,比較手術時間和手術併髮癥的情況。結果???牙挺遲擊法和撬拔法拔除牙根的手術時間分彆為(2.15±0.55)min及(4.03±0.88)min (P<0.01)。術中牙齦撕裂和牙槽突骨摺的髮生率2組差異有統計學意義(P<0.05),術中斷根的髮生率2種手術方法差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)。應用牙挺遲擊法術後疼痛的髮生率低于牙挺撬拔法(P<0.05)且上皮覆蓋拔牙創的時間較應用牙挺撬拔法短(P<0.01)。2種手術方法術後均未見齣血病例,應用牙挺撬拔法髮生榦槽癥的患者有1例。結論???採用牙挺遲擊法拔除牙根的手術時間短、併髮癥少,有利于拔牙創的愈閤。
목적:???비교아정충격법화효발법재아주간극감소적아근발제술중적림상효과。방법??수집다개아위적단근아아근140개,수궤분성2조,아정충격법조72개,아정효발법조68개。분별기록수술시간,비교수술시간화수술병발증적정황。결과???아정충격법화효발법발제아근적수술시간분별위(2.15±0.55)min급(4.03±0.88)min (P<0.01)。술중아간시렬화아조돌골절적발생솔2조차이유통계학의의(P<0.05),술중단근적발생솔2충수술방법차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)。응용아정충격법술후동통적발생솔저우아정효발법(P<0.05)차상피복개발아창적시간교응용아정효발법단(P<0.01)。2충수술방법술후균미견출혈병례,응용아정효발법발생간조증적환자유1례。결론???채용아정충격법발제아근적수술시간단、병발증소,유리우발아창적유합。
Objective ??This?study?aims?to?compare?the?effect?of?shock?and?lever?methods?used?in?periodontal?gap?reduced?tooth?root?extraction?operation.?Methods???A?total?of?140?single?tooth?roots?were?randomly?divided?into?two?treatment?groups.?One?group?underwent?the?shock?method,?and?the?other?group?underwent?the?lever?method.?The?first?group?included?72?tooth?roots,?and?the?second?group?included?68?tooth?roots.?Operation?time?and?operation?complications?were?compared.?Results???The?operating?time?for?the?shock?and?lever?methods?were?(2.15±0.55)?min?and?(4.03±0.88)?min?(P<0.01),?respectively.?A?significant?difference?on?gingival?tear?and?alveolar?fracture?between?the?shock?and?lever?methods?was?observed(P<0.05).?Significant?difference?of?tooth?root?fracture?was?not?found?during?surgery(P>0.05).?Postoperative?pain?was?less?in?the?shock?method?than?that?in?the?lever?method(P<0.05),?and?the?time?of?epithelial?covering?extraction?wound?was?shorter?in?the?shock?method?than?that?in?the?lever?method(P<0.01).?No?postoperative?bleeding?was?recorded?in?both?types?of?procedures.?Dry?socket?occurred?in?a?case?of?lever?method. Conclusion ?The?shock?method?is?better?for?tooth?root?extraction?operation.?This?method?could?shorten?the?operation?time,?reduce?the?intraoperative?and?postoperative?complications,?and?is?conducive?for?wound?healing?after?extraction.