气动外科专用切割手机与超声骨刀在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除中的效果比较

doi:10.19438/j.cjoms.2025.03.008

中国口腔颌面外科杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (3): 258-263.doi: 10.19438/j.cjoms.2025.03.008

气动外科专用切割手机与超声骨刀在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除中的效果比较

薛睿, 马振, 陈兴金, 范然怡, 陶识丞, 麦华明

广西医科大学口腔医学院/附属口腔医院,广西南宁 530021

收稿日期:2024-11-22 修回日期:2025-02-15 出版日期:2025-05-20 发布日期:2025-06-05
通讯作者: 麦华明,E-mail: huamingmai@163.com
作者简介:薛睿（1996-）,女,硕士,E-mail: 914472474@qq.com
基金资助:
2020年广西医疗卫生适宜技术开发与推广应用项目（S2020042）

A clinical study comparing two extraction modalities on postoperative response after mandibular impacted third molar extraction

Xue Rui, Ma Zhen, Chen Xingjin, Fan Ranyi, Tao Shicheng, Mai Huaming

College & Hospital of Stomatology, Guangxi Medical University. Nanning 530021, Guangxi Province, China

Received:2024-11-22 Revised:2025-02-15 Online:2025-05-20 Published:2025-06-05

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：比较超声骨刀与冲击式气动外科专用切割手机在拔除中高位下颌阻生第三磨牙中的效果,探索减轻下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术后反应和并发症的最佳方法。方法：采用随机、自身对照研究,纳入符合条件的32例患者作为研究对象。一侧患牙使用冲击式气动外科专用切割手机拔除（气动手机组）,另一侧患牙使用超声骨刀拔除（超声骨刀组）。比较2种方法的手术时间、术后疼痛程度、开口受限程度及患侧面部肿胀百分率、术后并发症发生率。采用SPSS 26.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果：与超声骨刀组相比,气动手机组手术用时更短,术后5~7天疼痛程度更低,术后2~7天开口受限程度更轻,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）;但2组间面部肿胀、术后1~4天疼痛及并发症无显著差异（P>0.05）。结论：冲击式气动外科专用切割手机拔牙时间短,术后疼痛轻,恢复快,开口受限程度轻,而超声骨刀法在减轻术后肿胀方面有一定优势。

关键词: 冲击式气动外科专用切割手机, 超声骨刀, 下颌阻生第三磨牙, 拔牙术后并发症

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the effects of piezosurgery and high-speed turbine handpiece in the extraction of middle and high impacted mandibular third molars, and to explore the best method for reducing postoperative reactions and complications of impacted mandibular third molar extraction. METHODS: A randomized, self-controlled study was conducted, and 32 eligible patients were included as the research objects. One side of the affected teeth was extracted with high-speed turbine handpiece (turbine handpiece group), while the other side of the affected teeth was extracted with piezosurgery (piezosurgery group). The operation time, degree of postoperative pain, degree of limitation of mouth opening, percentage of swelling of the affected side, and incidence of postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. SPSS 26.0 software package was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Compared with piezosurgery group, the turbine handpiece group had shorter operation time, lower pain scores on the 5th to 7th day after operation, and less limitation of mouth opening on the 2nd to 7th day after operation, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). However, There was no significant difference between the two groups in facial swelling, pain at 1-4 days after operation and complications(P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: High-speed turbine handpiece extraction takes less time, less postoperative pain, recovered more quickly, and less mouth opening limitation, while piezosurgery method has certain advantages in reducing postoperative swelling.

Key words: High-speed turbine, Piezosurgery, Mandibular impacted third molar, Post-extraction complications

中图分类号:

R782.1

薛睿, 马振, 陈兴金, 范然怡, 陶识丞, 麦华明. 气动外科专用切割手机与超声骨刀在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除中的效果比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2025, 23(3): 258-263.

Xue Rui, Ma Zhen, Chen Xingjin, Fan Ranyi, Tao Shicheng, Mai Huaming. A clinical study comparing two extraction modalities on postoperative response after mandibular impacted third molar extraction[J]. China J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2025, 23(3): 258-263.

参考文献

[1] 张志愿, 石冰, 张陈平, 等. 口腔颌面外科学[M]. 8 版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2020: 70.
Zhang ZY, Shi B, Zhang CP, et al.Oral and maxillofacial surgery[M]. 8th Ed. Beijing: People's Medical Press, 2020: 70.
[2] 吴峥嵘, 左园林, 李朝晖. 自体牙本质颗粒结合富血小板纤维蛋白膜治疗93例下颌第一磨牙根分叉病变效果评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2020, 29(2): 213-216.
Wu ZR, Zuo YL, Li ZH.Evaluation of 93 cases of mandibular first molar root bifurcation lesions treated with autologous dentin granules combined with platelet-rich fibrin membrane[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2020, 29(2): 213-216.
[3] Silva JL, Jardim EC, Dos Santos PL, et al.Comparative analysis of 2-flap designs for extraction of mandibular third molar[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2011, 22(3): 1003-1007.
[4] Tolstunov L, Javid B, Keyes L, et al.Pericoronal ostectomy: an alternative surgical technique for management of mandibular third molars in close proximity to the inferior alveolar nerve[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011, 69(7): 1858-1866.
[5] Alcantara CE, Falci SG, Oliveira-Ferreira F, et al.Premptive effect of dexamethasone and methylprednisolone on pain, swelling, and trismus after third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized triple-blind clinical trial[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014, 43(1): 93-98.
[6] Synan W, Stein K.Management of impacted third molars[J]. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, 2020, 32(4): 519-559.
[7] Contar CM, de Oliveira P, Kanegusuku K, et al. Complications in third molar removal: a retrospective study of 588 patients[J]. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2010, 15(1): e74-e78.
[8] Romeo U, Del Vecchio A, Palaia G, et al.Bone damage induced by different cutting instruments-an in vitro study[J]. Braz Dent J, 2009, 20(2): 162-168.
[9] 刘川, 胡开进, 周宏志. 疼痛与肿胀原因及防治[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2014, 7(11): 651-655.
Liu C, Hu KJ, Zhu HZ.Causes and prevention of pain and swelling[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Stomatology, 2014, 7(11): 651-655.
[10] 周蕾, 王传江. 下颌智齿拔除引起颈部皮下气肿并发纵隔气肿1例[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2022, 38(5): 257, 319.
Zhou L, Wang CJ. Cervical subcutaneous emphysema complicated with mediastinal emphysema caused by mandibular wisdom tooth extraction in 1 case[J]. Journal of Clinical Stomatology, 2022, 38(5): 257, 319.
[11] Landes CA, Stübinger S, Rieger J, et al.Critical evaluation of piezoelectric osteotomy in orthognathic surgery: operative technique, blood loss, time requirement, nerve and vessel integrity[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2008, 66(4): 657-674.
[12] 孙睿, 蔡育, 赵吉宏. 超声骨刀在口腔颌面外科的临床应用进展[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2018, 16(1): 89-92.
Sun R, Cai Y, Zhao JH.Clinical progress of piezosurgery in oral and maxillofacial surgery[J]. China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2018, 16(1): 89-92.
[13] Bilginaylar K, Uyanik LO.Evaluation of the effects of platelet-rich fibrin and piezosurgery on outcomes after removal of impacted mandibular third molars[J]. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2016, 54(6): 629-633.
[14] Gulnahar Y, Huseyin Kosger H, Tutar Y.A comparison of piezosurgery and conventional surgery by heat shock protein 70 expression[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013, 42(4): 508-510.
[15] Ge J, Yang C, Zheng J W, et al.Four osteotomy methods with piezosurgery to remove complicated mandibular third molars: a retrospective study[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014, 72(11): 2126-2133.
[16] 乔峰, 陈刚. 超声骨刀配合涡轮钻拔除下颌阻生智齿的临床研究[J]. 天津医科大学学报, 2011, 17(4): 525-527.
Qiao F, Chen G.Extraction of impacted wisdom tooth with piezosurgery and highspeed drill[J]. Journal of Tianjin Medical University, 2011, 17(4): 525-527.
[17] 吴昌敬, 邵军, 蔡剑林, 等. 超声骨刀联合高速涡轮机拔除下颌埋伏第三磨牙的临床应用[J]. 口腔颌面外科杂志, 2016, 26(1): 38-41.
Wu CJ, Shao J, Cai JL, et al.Piezosurgery combined with contra-angle high speed turbine handpiece in the extraction of impacted mandibular wisdom teeth[J]. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2016, 26(1): 38-41.
[18] 蔡萍, 丁修明, 张祥. 超声骨刀对下颌阻生齿拔除患者疗效、疼痛标志物、炎症反应及下牙槽神经损伤的影响[J]. 转化医学杂志, 2022, 11(4): 226-229.
Cai P, Ding XM, Zhang X.Effect of ultrasonic osteotome on pain markers,inflammatory response,and inferior alveolar nerve injury in patients undergoing extraction of impacted mandibular teeth[J]. Translational Medicine Journal, 2022, 11(4): 226-229.

气动外科专用切割手机与超声骨刀在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除中的效果比较

A clinical study comparing two extraction modalities on postoperative response after mandibular impacted 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 14

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]	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]	胡颖恺, 邹多宏, 杨驰. 超声骨刀分段截骨结合软组织增量治疗下前牙错位种植体1例报告[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2022, 20(6): 612-617.
[4]	宋勇, 李想, 蔡嫚, 王耀辉. 超声骨刀与涡轮法拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙的效果比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2019, 17(6): 540-544.
[5]	丁凤, 吴娴, 杨细虎, 周飞军, 丁晓军. 超声骨刀微创拔牙法与传统拔牙法拔除下颌水平阻生牙的效果比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2019, 17(5): 431-435.
[6]	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.
[7]	孙睿, 蔡育, 赵吉宏. 超声骨刀在口腔颌面外科的临床应用进展[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2018, 16(1): 89-92.
[8]	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.
[9]	胡颖恺, 杨驰, 徐光宙, 王保利, 浦益萍. 数字化辅助保存性外科治疗突入上颌窦后份的牙源性囊性病变[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2016, 14(6): 522-526.
[10]	胡颖恺, 杨驰, 徐光宙, 汪湧, 郑凌艳. 保存牙槽骨的上颌窦内异物取出方法及临床评价[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2016, 14(2): 154-157.
[11]	胡颖恺，徐光宙，杨驰. 老年人骨埋伏阻生牙37例临床分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2016, 14(1): 72-75.
[12]	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.
[13]	胡颖恺, 杨驰, 徐光宙. 埋伏2颗多生牙拔除1例报道[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2015, 13(3): 284-288.
[14]	郑吉驷;张善勇;杨驰;张瑛. 超声骨刀在种植外科的应用效果评价 [J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2013, 11(2): 140-144.