微创技术在拔除阻生齿中的应用效果
|
摘要
目的探讨微创技术在拔除阻生齿中的应用效果。方法选取2016年3月～2018年11月我院口腔科收治的90例需行拔除下颌阻生齿患者,按照选择拔除方法的不同分为观察组和对照组,每组45例。对照组采用传统拔牙手术进行治疗,观察组采用微创拔牙技术进行治疗,比较两组患者的手术时间、伤口愈合时间和术后并发症发生情况,并应用视觉模拟评分(VAS)评定比较两组患者术中、术后3天、7天的疼痛程度。结果观察组患者手术时间(16.69±4.67)min、伤口愈合时间(8.89±2.18)d分别短于对照组的(38.72±6.79)min、(16.09±3.46)d,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组患者术中(6.26±1.37)分、术后3天(3.42±0.75)分、7天的VAS评分(1.04±0.23)分分别低于对照组的(8.23±1.48)分、(5.23±1.09)分、(3.97±0.98)分,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组术后出现干槽症、感染、出血肿胀等并发症发生率(6.67%)低于对照组(37.78%),差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论微创拔牙技术应用于阻生齿拔除手术中,不仅能够有效减轻患者的疼痛感,更有效保护了患者口腔软硬组织,有效减少术后并发症的发生概率,促进患者康复。
Objective To explore the application effect of minimally invasive technique in removing impacted teeth. Methods From March 2016 to November 2018, 90 patients who underwent removal of mandibular impacted teeth were enrolled in the Department of Stomatology. The patients were divided into observation group and control group according to the method of selective extraction. There were 45 cases in each group. The control group was treated with traditional tooth extraction surgery. The observation group was treated with minimally invasive extraction technique. The operation time, wound healing time and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. The visual analogue scale(VAS) was used to compare the two groups. The degree of pain in the patient during surgery, 3 days, and 7 days after surgery. Results The operation time(16.69±4.67)min and wound healing time(8.89±2.18) d were shorter in the observation group than in the control group(38.72 ±6.79) min and(16.09±3.46) d,respectively,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);In the observation group, the scores of VAS were(6.26 ±1.37), the VAS scores(3.42±0.75) at 3 days(1.04 ±0.23) and 7 days after operation were lower than those of the control group(8.23 ±1.48),(5.23 ±1.09), and(3.97 ±0.98),respectively,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).The incidence of complications such as dry socket, infection, hemorrhage and swelling in the observation group(6.67%) was lower than that in the control group(37.78%),the difference was statistically significant( P<0.05). Conclusion Minimally invasive extraction technique can not only effectively reduce the pain of patients, but also effectively protect the soft and hard tissues of patients, effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative complications and promote the recovery of patients.
Objective To explore the application effect of minimally invasive technique in removing impacted teeth. Methods From March 2016 to November 2018, 90 patients who underwent removal of mandibular impacted teeth were enrolled in the Department of Stomatology. The patients were divided into observation group and control group according to the method of selective extraction. There were 45 cases in each group. The control group was treated with traditional tooth extraction surgery. The observation group was treated with minimally invasive extraction technique. The operation time, wound healing time and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. The visual analogue scale(VAS) was used to compare the two groups. The degree of pain in the patient during surgery, 3 days, and 7 days after surgery. Results The operation time(16.69±4.67)min and wound healing time(8.89±2.18) d were shorter in the observation group than in the control group(38.72 ±6.79) min and(16.09±3.46) d,respectively,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);In the observation group, the scores of VAS were(6.26 ±1.37), the VAS scores(3.42±0.75) at 3 days(1.04 ±0.23) and 7 days after operation were lower than those of the control group(8.23 ±1.48),(5.23 ±1.09), and(3.97 ±0.98),respectively,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).The incidence of complications such as dry socket, infection, hemorrhage and swelling in the observation group(6.67%) was lower than that in the control group(37.78%),the difference was statistically significant( P<0.05). Conclusion Minimally invasive extraction technique can not only effectively reduce the pain of patients, but also effectively protect the soft and hard tissues of patients, effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative complications and promote the recovery of patients.
引文
[1]刘燕.微创拔牙与传统拔牙在阻生牙拔除中的应用效果对比研究[J].中外医疗,2015,34(26):98-99.
[2]罗建军,赵明莉.微创拔牙法与传统拔牙法在阻生齿拔除中的效果观察[J].全科口腔医学电子杂志,2016,3(2):45-46.
[3]杨映阳,杜胜男,吕宗凯,等.高速涡轮机头和微创拔牙刀在下颌阻生牙拔除术中的应用效果评价[J].上海口腔医学,2015,24(4):489-492.
[4]张莉枝,王刚.微创拔牙技术在下颌近中阻生齿拔除中的临床效果分析[J].基层医学论坛,2015(18):2470-2471.
[5]覃钦红.微创拔牙技术在阻生齿拔除中的临床应用[J].医药前沿,2016(3):188-189.
[6]孙翠霞.微创拔牙技术在下颌近中阻生齿拔除中的疗效观察[J].医学信息,2015,28(44):363-363.
[7]Lin C,Zeng D,Zhao XL,et al.Numerical calculation of the profile of the gear teeth with partially corrugated surface[J].Journal of Mechanical Engineering,2015,61(5):303-310.
[8]朱光来,修力军,丁作友,等.微创与传统拔牙技术在阻生齿拔除中的临床应[J].广西医科大学学报,2016,33(1):108-109.
[9]明朋赫,郭宏,张蕊,等.微创拔牙法与传统拔牙法在阻生齿拔除中的效果研究[J].世界临床医学,2017,11(12):178.
[10]郭红燕.微创拔牙器械和传统拔牙器械在下颌阻生齿拔除术中的临床应用比[J].全科口腔医学电子杂志,2016,3(10):5-6,8.
[11]祝永涛.微创拔牙术在下颌阻生智齿拔除中的应用疗效[J].中国社区医师,2016,21(8):74-75.
[12]刘改英,刘晓波,张伟.高速涡轮机、微创拔牙刀在阻生智齿拔除术中的应用观察[J].山西大同大学学报(自然科学版),2015,19(1):33-35.
[2]罗建军,赵明莉.微创拔牙法与传统拔牙法在阻生齿拔除中的效果观察[J].全科口腔医学电子杂志,2016,3(2):45-46.
[3]杨映阳,杜胜男,吕宗凯,等.高速涡轮机头和微创拔牙刀在下颌阻生牙拔除术中的应用效果评价[J].上海口腔医学,2015,24(4):489-492.
[4]张莉枝,王刚.微创拔牙技术在下颌近中阻生齿拔除中的临床效果分析[J].基层医学论坛,2015(18):2470-2471.
[5]覃钦红.微创拔牙技术在阻生齿拔除中的临床应用[J].医药前沿,2016(3):188-189.
[6]孙翠霞.微创拔牙技术在下颌近中阻生齿拔除中的疗效观察[J].医学信息,2015,28(44):363-363.
[7]Lin C,Zeng D,Zhao XL,et al.Numerical calculation of the profile of the gear teeth with partially corrugated surface[J].Journal of Mechanical Engineering,2015,61(5):303-310.
[8]朱光来,修力军,丁作友,等.微创与传统拔牙技术在阻生齿拔除中的临床应[J].广西医科大学学报,2016,33(1):108-109.
[9]明朋赫,郭宏,张蕊,等.微创拔牙法与传统拔牙法在阻生齿拔除中的效果研究[J].世界临床医学,2017,11(12):178.
[10]郭红燕.微创拔牙器械和传统拔牙器械在下颌阻生齿拔除术中的临床应用比[J].全科口腔医学电子杂志,2016,3(10):5-6,8.
[11]祝永涛.微创拔牙术在下颌阻生智齿拔除中的应用疗效[J].中国社区医师,2016,21(8):74-75.
[12]刘改英,刘晓波,张伟.高速涡轮机、微创拔牙刀在阻生智齿拔除术中的应用观察[J].山西大同大学学报(自然科学版),2015,19(1):33-35.