电动牙科手机与涡轮气动牙科手机在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的应用及术后反应比较

doi:10.19438/j.cjoms.2024.05.005

中国口腔颌面外科杂志 ›› 2024, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (5): 440-445.doi: 10.19438/j.cjoms.2024.05.005

电动牙科手机与涡轮气动牙科手机在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的应用及术后反应比较

张宏羽¹, 苏莉雯¹, 孙欢¹, 吴杨^1,2

1.口颌系统重建与再生全国重点实验室,口腔生物医学教育部重点实验室,口腔医学湖北省重点实验室,武汉大学口腔医(学)院,湖北武汉 430079;
2.武汉大学口腔医院口腔颌面外科,湖北武汉 430079

收稿日期:2024-01-17 修回日期:2024-04-15 出版日期:2024-09-20 发布日期:2024-09-29
通讯作者: 吴杨,E-mail: wuyang83@whu.edu.cn
作者简介:张宏羽（2000-),女,在读硕士研究生,E-mail: 2018303041012@whu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金（31400836）

A comparative study of the intraoperative and postoperative response of electric dental handpieces and turbo-pneumatic dental handpieces after mandibular third molar extraction

ZHANG Hong-yu¹, SU Li-wen¹, SUN Huan¹, WU Yang^1,2

1. State Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration; Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education; Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology; School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University. Wuhan 430079;
2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University. Wuhan 430079, Hubei Province, China

Received:2024-01-17 Revised:2024-04-15 Online:2024-09-20 Published:2024-09-29

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的: 比较电动牙科手机与气动涡轮手机在拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙术中及术后反应方面的差异。方法: 采用随机分组自身交叉对照设计方法,选择行下颌双侧近中埋伏阻生智齿拔除术的患者50例,分别使用牙科电动手机和气动涡轮手机分次拔除左右两侧下颌埋伏阻生智齿。收集术中手术时间、疼痛程度、并发症发生率,复诊时收集术后第1、3、7天时的疼痛、肿胀及开口受限程度。采用SPSS 19.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果: 与气动涡轮手机组相比,电动手机组手术时间、术后并发症无显著差异,但在减少术后疼痛、减轻术后肿胀反应、加速患者开口度恢复方面有显著优势。结论: 电动牙科手机用于下颌阻生智齿拔除比传统气动涡轮手机更具优势,值得推广应用。

关键词: 电动牙科手机, 气动涡轮手机, 阻生第三磨牙, 拔牙术

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the differences in intraoperative and postoperative response between electric dental handpieces and pneumatic turbine handpieces in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. METHODS: Using a randomized grouped self-crossover control design method, 50 patients who underwent extraction of bilateral mandibular proximal-medial impacted wisdom teeth were selected, and the right and left mandibular impacted wisdom teeth were extracted with dental electric handpieces and pneumatic turbine handpieces, respectively. Intraoperative surgery time, pain degree, and complication rate were collected, and postoperative pain level, swelling level, and mouth opening restriction were recorded on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th days after extraction, and the data of the two groups were compared. SPSS 19.0 software package was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Compared with the turbo-pneumatic dental handpieces group, the electric dental handpieces group had no significant difference in operation time and postoperative complications, but with significant advantages in reducing postoperative pain, postoperative swelling reaction, and accelerating the recovery of patients' mouth opening. CONCLUSIONS: Electric dental handpieces has more advantages than turbo-pneumatic dental handpieces in the extraction of mandibular impacted wisdom teeth, which is worthy of clinical application.

Key words: Electric dental handpieces, Turbo-pneumatic dental handpieces, Impacted third molar, Tooth extractions

中图分类号:

R782.11

张宏羽, 苏莉雯, 孙欢, 吴杨. 电动牙科手机与涡轮气动牙科手机在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的应用及术后反应比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2024, 22(5): 440-445.

ZHANG Hong-yu, SU Li-wen, SUN Huan, WU Yang. A comparative study of the intraoperative and postoperative response of electric dental handpieces and turbo-pneumatic dental handpieces after mandibular third molar extraction[J]. China J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2024, 22(5): 440-445.

参考文献

[1] Kenyon BJ, Van Zyl I, Louie KG.Comparison of cavity preparation quality using an electric motor handpiece and an air turbine dental handpiece[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2005, 136(8): 1101-1105.
[2] Ercoli C, Rotella M, Funkenbusch PD, et al.In vitro comparison of the cutting efficiency and temperature production of ten different rotary cutting instruments. part Ⅱ: electric handpiece and comparison with turbine[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2009, 101(5): 319-331.
[3] Choi C, Driscoll CF, Romberg E.Comparison of cutting efficiencies between electric and air-turbine dental handpieces[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2010, 103(2): 101-107.
[4] Rotella M, Ercoli C, Funkenbusch PD, et al.Performance of single-use and multiuse diamond rotary cutting instruments with turbine and electric handpieces[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2014, 111(1): 56-63.
[5] Funkenbusch PD, Rotella M, Chochlidakis K, et al.Multivariate evaluation of the cutting performance of rotary instruments with electric and air-turbine handpieces[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2016, 116(4): 558-563.
[6] Ricci ML, Fontana S, Pinci F, et al.Pneumonia associated with a dental unit waterline[J]. Lancet, 2012, 379(9816): 684.
[7] Schönning C, Jernberg C, Klingenberg D, et al.Legionellosis acquired through a dental unit: a case study[J]. J Hosp infect, 2017, 96(1): 89-92.
[8] Hall DL.Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and infection control for restorative dental treatment in nursing homes[J]. Spec Care Dentist, 2003, 23(3): 100-107.
[9] Eikenberg SL.Comparison of the cutting efficiencies of electric motor and air turbine dental handpieces[J]. Gen Dent, 2001, 49(2): 199-204.
[10] Pei DD, Meng YC, Fayed AS, et al.Comparison of crown fit and operator preferences between tooth preparation with electric and air-turbine handpieces[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2021, 125(1): 111-116.
[11] Campbell SC.Are friends electric?: a review of the electric handpiece in clinical dental practice[J]. Dent Update, 2013, 40(3): 194-196.
[12] Song XF, Peng JH, Yin L, et al.A machining science approach to dental cutting of glass ceramics using an electric handpiece and diamond burs[J]. J Manuf Sci Eng, 2013, 135(1): 011014.
[13] Poole RL, Lea SC, Dyson JE, et al.Vibration characteristics of dental high-speed turbines and speed-increasing handpieces[J]. J Dent, 2008, 36(7): 488-493.
[14] 纪学悦,费春楠,沈芃, 等.诊疗之间冲洗对口腔综合治疗台水路污染影响的研究[J].中国消毒学杂志, 2015, 32(3): 225-227.
Ji XF, Fei CN, Shen P, et al.Reaearch on the effect of flushing dental unit waterline between treatments on the bacterial load of dental unit water[J]. Chinese Journal of Disinfection, 2015, 32(3): 225-227.
[15] Costa D, Mercier A, Gravouil K, et al.Pyrosequencing analysis of bacterial diversity in dental unit waterlines[J].Water Res, 2015, 15(81): 223-231.
[16] Wirthlin MR, Roth M.Dental unit waterline contamination:a review of research and findings from a clinic setting[J]. Compend Contin Educ Dent, 2015, 36(3): 216-219.
[17] Szymanska J, Sitkowska J.Opportunistic bacteria in dental unit waterlines: assessment and characteristics[J]. Future Microbiol, 2013, 8(5): 681-689.
[18] 苏静. 口腔综合治疗台水路管理的现状与思考[J].中国实用口腔科杂志, 2018, 11(12): 713-717.
Su J.Current status and thoughts on the management of dental unit water lines[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Stomatology, 2018, 11(12): 713-717.
[19] T/WSJD 40-2023, 口腔综合治疗台水路清洗消毒技术规范[S]. T/WSJD 40-2023, Dental unit water lines cleaning and disinfection technical specifications[S].
[20] Ohta K, Yoshimura H, Ryoke T, et al.Investigation of the electric handpiece-related pneumomediastinum and cervicofacial subcutaneous emphysema in third molar surgery[J]. J Hard Tissue Biol, 2019, 28(1): 79-86.
[21] Robles-Moreno M, Sananez AJ, Mettenburg DJ, et al.Hand fatigue differences between air driven and electric handpieces[J]. J Dent Res, 2020 (99A): 1362.
[22] Kazen DH. Modern electric handpieces feature improved benefits for today's dental surgeon[J]. Dent Assist, 2005, 74(1): 16, 25.

电动牙科手机与涡轮气动牙科手机在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的应用及术后反应比较

A comparative study of the intraoperative and postoperative response of electric dental handpieces and turbo-pneumatic dental handpieces after mandibular third molar extraction

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 10

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	郭磊, 雷荣昌, 曲彬彬, 郭阁, 柴安, 罗莹. 拔牙时车针断入软腭内1例报告并文献复习[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2024, 22(2): 202-205.
[2]	朱承章, 万宏坤. 超前镇痛对阻生牙微创拔牙术后镇痛效果及MDAS评分的影响[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2024, 22(1): 49-52.
[3]	管亚芩, 代杰文, 何花, 余丽雅. 下颌埋伏阻生第三磨牙拔除术中患者牙科畏惧感调查分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2023, 21(3): 267-271.
[4]	常忠福, 卢立全, 姜丹丹, 张志荣, 蔡建英, 张丽华. 微创拔牙术拔除阻生智牙的临床效果及对VAS评分和应激反应的影响[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2020, 18(3): 260-263.
[5]	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.
[6]	孙蕾, 赵其荣, 郑浩. 下颌近中阻生第三磨牙拔除方法与神经损伤危险因素分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2018, 16(5): 441-444.
[7]	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.
[8]	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.
[9]	易玉龙, 亓鹏, 李宇. 下颌埋伏阻生第三磨牙拔除术并发症临床分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2016, 14(3): 249-252.
[10]	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.