辽宁医学院学报
遼寧醫學院學報
료녕의학원학보
Journal of Liaoning Medical University
2015年
5期
58-60
,共3页
一次性根管充填%多次法根管充填%慢性牙髓炎%慢性根尖周炎%疗效
一次性根管充填%多次法根管充填%慢性牙髓炎%慢性根尖週炎%療效
일차성근관충전%다차법근관충전%만성아수염%만성근첨주염%료효
one-time root canal filling%multiple-time root canal fillings%chronic pulpitis%chronic periapical periodontitis%cur-ative effect
目的 探讨一次性根管充填治疗慢性牙髓炎、 根尖周炎的临床疗效. 方法 回顾性分析我院口腔内科89例慢性牙髓炎、 根尖周炎患者临床资料, 根据治疗方法的不同分为两组, 观察组56例和对照组33例, 观察组患者采用一次性根管充填治疗, 对照组患者的治疗采用传统多次法根管充填, 观察对比两组临床疗效和疼痛消失时间、 治疗时间、 治疗后用药时间、 就诊次数等指标. 结果 观察组总有效率为92. 86%, 对照组总有效率为93. 94%, 两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0. 05); 两组在疼痛消失时间和治疗后用药时间方面比较差异无统计学意义 (P>0. 05), 但观察组就诊次数显著少于对照组, 完成治疗所需时间显著短于对照组, 差异均有统计学意义 (P<0. 05). 结论 一次性根管充填治疗慢性牙髓炎、 根尖周炎的临床疗效与传统多次法根管充填治疗相当, 两种方法均能显著改善患者的疼痛, 且一次性根管充填治疗疗程短,值得临床积极推广.
目的 探討一次性根管充填治療慢性牙髓炎、 根尖週炎的臨床療效. 方法 迴顧性分析我院口腔內科89例慢性牙髓炎、 根尖週炎患者臨床資料, 根據治療方法的不同分為兩組, 觀察組56例和對照組33例, 觀察組患者採用一次性根管充填治療, 對照組患者的治療採用傳統多次法根管充填, 觀察對比兩組臨床療效和疼痛消失時間、 治療時間、 治療後用藥時間、 就診次數等指標. 結果 觀察組總有效率為92. 86%, 對照組總有效率為93. 94%, 兩組比較差異無統計學意義(P>0. 05); 兩組在疼痛消失時間和治療後用藥時間方麵比較差異無統計學意義 (P>0. 05), 但觀察組就診次數顯著少于對照組, 完成治療所需時間顯著短于對照組, 差異均有統計學意義 (P<0. 05). 結論 一次性根管充填治療慢性牙髓炎、 根尖週炎的臨床療效與傳統多次法根管充填治療相噹, 兩種方法均能顯著改善患者的疼痛, 且一次性根管充填治療療程短,值得臨床積極推廣.
목적 탐토일차성근관충전치료만성아수염、 근첨주염적림상료효. 방법 회고성분석아원구강내과89례만성아수염、 근첨주염환자림상자료, 근거치료방법적불동분위량조, 관찰조56례화대조조33례, 관찰조환자채용일차성근관충전치료, 대조조환자적치료채용전통다차법근관충전, 관찰대비량조림상료효화동통소실시간、 치료시간、 치료후용약시간、 취진차수등지표. 결과 관찰조총유효솔위92. 86%, 대조조총유효솔위93. 94%, 량조비교차이무통계학의의(P>0. 05); 량조재동통소실시간화치료후용약시간방면비교차이무통계학의의 (P>0. 05), 단관찰조취진차수현저소우대조조, 완성치료소수시간현저단우대조조, 차이균유통계학의의 (P<0. 05). 결론 일차성근관충전치료만성아수염、 근첨주염적림상료효여전통다차법근관충전치료상당, 량충방법균능현저개선환자적동통, 차일차성근관충전치료료정단,치득림상적겁추엄.
Objective To explore the curative effect of one-time root canal filling on chronic pulpitis and periapical periodonti-tis. Methods The clinical data of 89 cases with chronic pulpitis and periapical periodontitis were retrospectively analyzed. These ca-ses were divided into two groups according to different ways of treatment (56 cases in observation group and 33 cases in control group). Patients in observation group were treated by one-time root canal filling;patients in control group were treated by the traditional method of root canal filling for many times. Such index as curative effect, the time when the pain disappeared, time for treatment, medication time after treatment and visiting times were compared. Results The total effective rate in observation group was 92. 86%, and the to-tal effective rate in control group was 93. 94%, with no statistically significant difference ( P>0. 05 ) . There was no statistical differ-ence in time when pain disappeared and treatment duration between the two groups (P>0. 05). However, the visiting time in observa-tion group was significantly less than that of the control group, and the cure time was significantly shorter than the control group, with no statistical significant difference (P<0. 05). Conclusion There was no obvious difference in the curative effect between one-time root canal filling and the traditional method of multiple-time root canal filling for chronic pulpitis and periapical periodontitis; both methods can obviously alleviate the patients' pain. However, the method of one-time root canal filling has short course of treatment, which is therefore worthy to be popularized.
