微创技术拔除阻生牙的临床效果(1)
[摘要]目的 探讨采用微创技术拔除阻生牙的临床效果。方法 选取2019年1月～2020年2月我院收治的80例阻生牙患者作为研究对象，按照单双号分为两组，每组各40例，对照组采用传统拔牙术治疗，观察组采用微创技术治疗，比较两组术后视觉模拟评分(VAS)、牙槽完整性评分、手术时间、拔牙窝不完整率、满意度、口腔健康相关生存质量量表(OHIP-14)评分及并发症总发生率。结果 观察组患者治疗后的VAS评分[(1.12±0.22)分]、牙槽完整性评分[(1.05±0.33)分]、拔牙窝不完整率(2.50%)、生理性疼痛[(1.45±0.19)分]、社交障碍[(1.19±0.22)分]、功能限制[(2.39±0.42)分]、生理障碍[(2.05±0.16)分]、并发症总发生率(2.50%)低于对照组[(2.65±0.43)分、(2.76±0.41)分、20.00%、(2.86±0.57)分、(3.46±0.75)分、(4.85±0.61)分、(3.58±0.43)分、27.50%]，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组手术时间[(34.84±3.56)min]短于对照组[(47.76±4.23)min]，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组满意度(100.00%)高于对照组(80.00%)，差異有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 在拔除阻生牙时，选择微创手术效果更佳。
[关键词]微创;牙槽;阻生牙
[中图分类号] R782.11 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 1674-4721(2020)9(c)-0119-03
[Abstract] Objective To explore the clinical effect of minimally invasive technique on impacted teeth extraction. Methods A total of 80 patients with impacted teeth admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to February 2020 were selected as the research subjects and divided into two groups by odd or even number， with 40 cases in each group. Patients in the control group were treated with traditional tooth extraction. Patients in the observation group were treated with minimally invasive. After treatment， the visual analogue scale (VAS)， alveolar socket integrity， operation time， incomplete extraction socket， satisfaction， oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) scale and complications were compared between the two groups. Results After treatment， the VAS score ([1.12±0.22] points)， alveolar socket integrity score ([1.05±0.33] points)， the incidence of incomplete extraction socket (2.50%)， physiological pain ([1.45±0.19] points)， social disorder ([1.19±0.22] points)， functional limitation ([2.39±0.42] points)， physical disorder ([2.05±0.16] points) and total incidence of complication (2.50%) in the observation group were all lower than those of the control group ([2.65±0.43] points， [2.76±0.41] points， 20.00%， [2.86±0.57] points， [3.46±0.75] points， [4.85±0.61] points， [3.58±0.43] points， 27.50%)， and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The operation time of the observation group ([34.84±3.56] min) was shorter than that of the control group ([47.76±4.23] min)， and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The satisfaction of the observation group (100.00%) was higher than that of the control group (80.00%)， and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion In the extraction of impacted teeth， the effect of minimally invasive treatment is better than the traditional tooth extraction., http://www.100md.com(冯叶)
[关键词]微创;牙槽;阻生牙
[中图分类号] R782.11 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 1674-4721(2020)9(c)-0119-03
[Abstract] Objective To explore the clinical effect of minimally invasive technique on impacted teeth extraction. Methods A total of 80 patients with impacted teeth admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to February 2020 were selected as the research subjects and divided into two groups by odd or even number， with 40 cases in each group. Patients in the control group were treated with traditional tooth extraction. Patients in the observation group were treated with minimally invasive. After treatment， the visual analogue scale (VAS)， alveolar socket integrity， operation time， incomplete extraction socket， satisfaction， oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) scale and complications were compared between the two groups. Results After treatment， the VAS score ([1.12±0.22] points)， alveolar socket integrity score ([1.05±0.33] points)， the incidence of incomplete extraction socket (2.50%)， physiological pain ([1.45±0.19] points)， social disorder ([1.19±0.22] points)， functional limitation ([2.39±0.42] points)， physical disorder ([2.05±0.16] points) and total incidence of complication (2.50%) in the observation group were all lower than those of the control group ([2.65±0.43] points， [2.76±0.41] points， 20.00%， [2.86±0.57] points， [3.46±0.75] points， [4.85±0.61] points， [3.58±0.43] points， 27.50%)， and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The operation time of the observation group ([34.84±3.56] min) was shorter than that of the control group ([47.76±4.23] min)， and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The satisfaction of the observation group (100.00%) was higher than that of the control group (80.00%)， and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion In the extraction of impacted teeth， the effect of minimally invasive treatment is better than the traditional tooth extraction., http://www.100md.com(冯叶)