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

doi:10.19438/j.cjoms.2019.05.008

中国口腔颌面外科杂志 ›› 2019, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (5): 431-435.doi: 10.19438/j.cjoms.2019.05.008

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

丁凤, 吴娴, 杨细虎, 周飞军, 丁晓军

江苏大学附属医院口腔科,江苏镇江 212000

收稿日期:2018-10-10 出版日期:2019-09-20 发布日期:2020-03-11
通讯作者: 丁晓军,E-mail：215589808@qq.com
作者简介:丁凤（1989-）,女,硕士,医师,E-mail：835629025@qq.com
基金资助:
江苏省青年医学重点人才项目 (QNRC2016841); 镇江市卫生科技重点项目(SHW2015003); 江苏大学临床医学专项基金（JDLCZX016）

Comparison of piezosurgery device and traditional method in extraction of horizontally impacted mandibular third molar

DING Feng, WU Xian, YANG Xi-hu, ZHOU Fei-jun, DING Xiao-jun

Department of Stomatology, Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University. Zhenjiang 212000, Jiangsu Province, China

Received:2018-10-10 Online:2019-09-20 Published:2020-03-11

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：比较超声骨刀微创拔牙法与传统拔牙法拔除下颌水平阻生智牙的临床效果。方法：将 240 例下颌阻生智牙患者随机分为微创拔牙组及传统拔牙组,每组120例。比较2 组手术时间、术中并发症（包括术中根折、拔牙窝形变）发生情况、术中心理畏惧情况、术后并发症（包括干槽症、开口受限、面颊部疼痛、肿胀）、术后下唇及舌部麻木症状的发生情况。采用 SPSS 13.0 软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果：微创拔牙组和传统拔牙组手术时间分别为（18.0±6.3）min和（37.0±8.2）min,存在显著差异（P<0.05）。微创拔牙组拔牙窝中、重度形变发生率及术中心理畏惧发生率均显著低于传统拔牙组（P<0.05）,术后第3天开口受限程度与术后疼痛肿胀发生率与传统拔牙组相比,均有显著差异（P<0.05）。结论：超声骨刀微创拔牙法拔除下颌阻生牙较传统拔牙法手术时间短,术中、术后并发症少,患者心理畏惧程度较低,可显著降低对拔牙窝及邻牙的创伤,患者更愿意接受,适宜在临床上推广应用。

关键词: 下颌水平阻生牙, 超声骨刀, 微创拔牙, 传统拔牙

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effect of using piezosurgery device and traditional method in extraction of horizontally impacted mandibular third molar. METHODS: Two hundred and forty patients with horizontally impacted mandibular third molar were equally divided into 2 groups: using piezosurgery device and traditional method for extraction. The operation time, intraoperative and postoperative complications including deformation of extraction sockets, dry socket, limitation of mouth opening, pain and swelling, and fear were observed and compared between the two groups. The data were analyzed with SPSS 13.0 software package. RESULTS: The operation time was (18.0±6.3) min in the minimally invasive extraction group, significantly shorter than the traditional method group which was (37.0±8.2）min (P<0.05); significant difference was found in the incidence of medium or severe tooth sockets deformation and incidence of psychological fear during operation between the two groups(P<0.05); the degree of mouth opening after surgery, the incidence of moderate or severe pain after surgery was significantly lower in the group with piezosurgery device than in the group with traditional method (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive extraction with piezosurgery device is better than traditional method in extraction of horizontally impacted mandibular third molar, with shorter operation time and fewer intraoperative and postoperative complications, which should be widely applied in clinic.

Key words: Horizontally impacted mandibular third molar, Piezosurgery device, Minimally invasive extraction, Traditional extraction

中图分类号:

R782.11

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.

DING Feng, WU Xian, YANG Xi-hu, ZHOU Fei-jun, DING Xiao-jun. Comparison of piezosurgery device and traditional method in extraction of horizontally impacted mandibular third molar[J]. China J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019, 17(5): 431-435.

参考文献

[1] 邱蔚六. 口腔颌面外科学 [M]. 第6 版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2008: 75-84.
[2] Bello SA, Adeyemo WL, Bamgbose BO, et al.Effect of age, impaction types and operative time on inflammatory tissue reactions following lower third molar surgery[J]. Head Face Med, 2011, 7: 8.
[3] Bhati B, Kukreja P, Kumar S, et al.Piezosurgery versus rotatory osteotomy in mandibular impacted third molar extraction[J]. Ann Maxillofac Surg, 2017, 7(1): 5-10.
[4] Rashad A, Kaiser A, Prochnow N, et al.Heat production during different ultrasonic and conventional osteotomy preparations for dental implants[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2011, 22(12): 1361-1365.
[5] 胡开进, 杨擎天. 微创拔牙理念及技术操作[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志, 2011, 38(3): 249-252.
[6] 李晨琳, 徐光宙, 杨驰, 等. 下颌阻生第三磨牙阻生类型与第二磨牙损害相关性的影像分析[J].中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2018, 16(4): 357-361.
[7] 徐芳, 张慧霞. 微创拔牙法与传统拔牙法拔除下颌阻生智牙疗效比较[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2016, 25(5): 613-616.
[8] Borgonovo AE, Rigaldo F, Maiorana C, et al.CBCT evaluation of the tridimensional relationship between impacted lower third molar and the inferior alveolar nerve position[J]. Minerva Stomatol, 2017, 66(1): 9-19.
[9] 王高丽, 王俊, 杜湘伟, 等. 微创拔除下颌第三磨牙患者心理干预模式及其效果研究[J].实用口腔医学杂志, 2013, 29(5): 721-723.
[10] Brignardello-Petersen R.Piezoelectric instruments used for odontosection or osteotomy may result in less trismus after surgical mandibular third-molar extraction than rotatory instruments[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2017, 148(7): e102.
[11] Hasegawa T, Ri S, Shigeta T, et al.Risk factors associated with inferior alveolar nerve injury after extraction of the mandibular third molar-a comparative study of preoperative images by panoramic radiography and computed tomography[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013,42(7): 843-851.
[12] 杨映阳, 杜胜男, 吕宗凯. 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.
[13] Vercellotti T, De Paoli S, Nevins M.The piezoelectric bony window osteotomy and sinus membrane elevation: introduction of a new technique for simplification of the sinus augmentation procedure[J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2001, 21(6): 561-567.
[14] Ma L, Stübinger S, Liu XL, et al.Healing of osteotomy sites applying either piezosurgery or two conventional saw blades: a pilot study in rabbits[J]. Int Orthop, 2013, 37(8): 1597-1603.
[15] Stübinger S, Stricker A, Berg BI.Piezosurgery in implant dentistry[J]. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent, 2015, 7: 115-124.
[16] 张永信. 严格掌握抗菌药物应用指征[J]. 中国临床医生, 2005, 33(5): 16-17.
[17] Ghaeminia H, Hoppenreijs TJ, Xi T, et al.Postoperative socket irrigation with drinking tap water reduces the risk of inflammatory complications following surgical removal of third molars: a multicenter randomized trial[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2017, 21(1): 71-83.

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

Comparison of piezosurgery device and traditional method in extraction of horizontally impacted mandibular third molar

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	康铖, 朱挺, 韩爽, 娄伊伊. 笑气联合局麻在阻生牙拔除中的应用效果评价[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2024, 22(2): 165-169.
[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]	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.
[4]	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.
[5]	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.
[6]	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.
[7]	郑雪妮, 刘平, 刘川, 马洋, 莫静珍, 胡开进. 微创拔牙发展史[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2019, 17(6): 560-565.
[8]	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.
[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]	邱瀚宣, 郑吉驷, 张善勇. 牙槽窝保存的研究进展[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2016, 14(6): 572-576.
[11]	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.
[12]	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.
[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]	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.
[15]	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.