电动式微动力系统与气动式手机拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙的临床效果比较

doi:10.19438/j.cjoms.2019.04.012

中国口腔颌面外科杂志 ›› 2019, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (4): 342-345.doi: 10.19438/j.cjoms.2019.04.012

电动式微动力系统与气动式手机拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙的临床效果比较

张瑞, 薛昌敖, 张凤格, 张建华

[南京医科大学附属南京医院（南京市第一医院）口腔科,江苏南京 210000]

收稿日期:2018-11-07 修回日期:2019-01-28 出版日期:2019-07-20 发布日期:2019-08-12
通讯作者: 张建华,E-mail: dentistzr@163.com
作者简介:张瑞(1989-),男,硕士,住院医师,E-mail: 771327986@qq.com

Electro-microdynamic system versus impact air handpiece in impacted mandibular third molar surgery

ZHANG Rui, XUE Chang-ao, ZHANG Feng-ge, ZHANG Jian-hua

Department of Stomatology,Nanjing First Hospital,Nanjing Medical University. Nanjing 210000,Jiangsu Province,China

Received:2018-11-07 Revised:2019-01-28 Online:2019-07-20 Published:2019-08-12

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的比较电动式微动力系统和气动式手机在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的临床效果。方法对106例患者的212颗下颌双侧第三磨牙分2次拔除,采用随机、交叉、自身对照方法,分别采用电动式微动力系统和气动式手机进行阻生牙拔除术。记录并比较患者手术时间及术中、术后并发症发生情况。采用SPSS 21.0 软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果电动式微动力组手术时间较短,术后第1天肿胀、疼痛程度均轻于气动式手机组（P<0.05）。结论电动式微动力系统拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙优于气动式手机,值得临床应用。

关键词: 下颌阻生第三磨牙, 牙拔除术, 电动式微动力系统, 气动式手机

Abstract: PURPOSE: To investigate the value of electro-microdynamic system compared with impact air handpiece during impacted mandibular third molar removal. METDODS: The 212 mandibular bilateral third molars of 106 patients were extracted in 2 times through a randomized, split-mouth clinical trial. Electro-microdynamic system and impact air handpiece were used respectively. The extraction time,intraoperative and postoperative complications of two groups of patients were recorded and compared statistically with SPSS 21.0 software package. Results: The extraction time, swelling and postoperative pain on the 1st day were significantly lower in patients with electro-microdynamic system than in patients with impact air handpiece (P<0.05). Conclusions: Using electro-microdynamic system can reduce postoperative pain and swelling, which is worthy of clinical application.

Key words: Impacted third molar, Tooth extraction, Electro-microdynamic system, Impact air handpiece

中图分类号:

R782.1

张瑞, 薛昌敖, 张凤格, 张建华. 电动式微动力系统与气动式手机拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙的临床效果比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2019, 17(4): 342-345.

ZHANG Rui, XUE Chang-ao, ZHANG Feng-ge, ZHANG Jian-hua. Electro-microdynamic system versus impact air handpiece in impacted mandibular third molar surgery[J]. China J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019, 17(4): 342-345.

参考文献

[1] Yolcu Ã, Acar AH.Comparison of a new flap design with the routinely used triangular flap design in third molar surgery[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2015, 44(11):1390-1397.
[2] Acar AH, Kazancioglu HO, Erdem NF, et al.Is horizontal mattress suturing more effective than simple interrupted suturing on postoperative complications and primary wound healing after impacted mandibular third molar surgery?[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2017, 28(7):e657.
[3] Kazancioglu HO, Ezirganli S, Demirtas N.Comparison of the influence of ozone and laser therapies on pain, swelling, and trismus following impacted third-molar surgery[J]. Lasers Med Sci, 2014, 29(4):1313-1319.
[4] Dolanmaz D, Esen A, Isik K, et al.Effect of 2 flap designs on postoperative pain and swelling after impacted third molar surgery[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2013, 116(4):244-246.
[5] Hashemi HM, Beshkar M, Aghajani R.The effect of sutureless wound closure on postoperative pain and swelling after impacted mandibular third molar surgery[J]. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 50(3):256-258.
[6] 胡开进, 李永锋, 吴迪. 微动力系统在牙拔除术中的应用[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2015, 33(1):1-5.
[7] 蒋才丽. 气动式外科专用切割手机拔除下颌低位阻生智齿的应用效果评价[J]. 口腔医学, 2018, 38(3):259-262.
[8] Piersanti L, Dilorenzo M, Monaco G, et al.Piezosurgery or conventional rotatory instruments for inferior third molar extractions?[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014, 72(9):1647-1652.
[9] Mantovani E, Arduino PG, Schierano G, et al.A split-mouth randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of piezosurgery compared with traditional technique in lower wisdom tooth removal.[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014, 72(10):1890-1897.
[10] 张志愿. 口腔颌面外科学[M]. 第7版.北京:人民卫生出版社, 2012:132-134.
[11] 李向军, 张晓燕, 张晓,等. 2种微动力系统应用于下颌低位阻生智齿拔除术的比较研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2017, 33(5):554-558.
[12] 薛芃, 侯锐, 尚磊,等. 抗菌药物对下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除后炎性并发症影响的临床观察[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2014, 49(10):603-606.
[13] 王莹莹, 程继光, 陈新,等. 牙科高速气涡轮切割手机与传统器械拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙的临床比较[J]. 安徽医药, 2015, 19(1):74-77.
[14] Kazancioglu HO, Kurklu E, Ezirganli S.Effects of ozone therapy on pain, swelling, and trismus following third molar surgery[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014, 43(5):644-648.
[15] Slade GD, Foy SP, Shugars DA, et al.The impact of third molar symptoms, pain, and swelling on oral health-related quality of life[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2004, 62(9):1118-1124.
[16] 胡开进, 赵吉宏, 唐海阔,等. 干槽症的预防与处理[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志, 2015, 42(1):7-11.
[17] 马洋, 吴迪, 胡开进,等. 拔牙术后感染和皮下气肿的原因与防治[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2014, 7(12):711-714.
[18] Susarla SM, Sharaf B, Dodson TB.Do antibiotics reduce the frequency of surgical site infections after impacted mandibular third molar surgery?[J]. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, 2011, 23(4):541-546.
[19] 许广杰, 杨霞, 侯锐,等. 113例拔牙术后出血急诊处理的临床分析[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2016, 32(1):47-49.

电动式微动力系统与气动式手机拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙的临床效果比较

Electro-microdynamic system versus impact air handpiece in impacted mandibular third molar surgery

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 9

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	王辰昕, 彭晶, 黄昕, 施乐, 戴小锋. 柱状胶原蛋白海绵用于阻生牙拔除的效果及并发症风险分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2023, 21(2): 146-151.
[2]	李燕香, 闫利君, 凌小婉, 周文洁, 王跃平. 微创器械与微动力设备在牙拔除术中的应用进展[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2023, 21(2): 191-196.
[3]	郝新河, 高超, 沈末伦, 叶虎, 赵君, 储德强, 翟沁凯. 术前继续口服抗凝药对复杂牙拔除术后出血的影响[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2021, 19(3): 226-229.
[4]	刘芷扬, 陈敏洁, 张伟杰, 魏文斌, 韩孜祥, 柴盈. 三维重建技术在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术临床教学中的应用[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2020, 18(1): 68-70.
[5]	周玉文，庄浩，陈娟萍，沈海平. 加长球型车针在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的应用[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2017, 15(5): 442-444.
[6]	张洁, 沈国华, 吕翔, 王晓英, 李春艳. 45°反角涡轮钻改良拔除术在下颌阻生第三磨牙中的应用效果评价[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2016, 14(6): 542-544.
[7]	叶周熹，杨驰. 下颌阻生智牙拔除术中下牙槽神经血管束损伤风险因素分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2016, 14(1): 51-56.
[8]	庄浩, 沈海平, 王惠娟. 下颌阻生第三磨牙分段切割拔除术的选择[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2015, 13(3): 245-248.
[9]	伍义强;龚仁国;柯贤俊;李庆华;罗纯锐;阙佳佳. 上颌死髓磨牙2种拔除方法的比较 [J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2013, 11(4): 312-314.