Rafique S, Fiske J, Banerjee A
Wandsworth Primary Care Trust, Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' Dental Institute, KCL, London, UK.
Caries Res. 2003 Sep-Oct;37(5):360-4. doi: 10.1159/000072168.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether caries removal with air-abrasion/Carisolv gel is an acceptable and viable alternative in the treatment of dental patients. Twenty-two patients were treated with conventional methods (local anaesthetic injection/drill) followed by alternative treatment (air-abrasion and Carisolv gel) in a general practice setting, by the same operator. The participants' pre-operative anxiety levels were measured using the Modified Dental Anxiety Scale. Their postoperative levels of anxiety/dislike for aspects of both conventional and alternative treatments were assessed using a visual analogue scale. Levels of anxiety/dislike for both treatments were compared and statistically analysed. Results showed 100% of subjects were concerned about several aspects of conventional treatment including pain/discomfort on injection, taste of anaesthetic, length of time tissues remained numb, noise of the drill, its sensory vibrations and water coolant. However, 75% of the study population were happy with all aspects of the air-abrasion technique including dust, pain/discomfort and vibrations produced. Overall, the study population found Carisolv gel to be an acceptable alternative method of caries removal in terms of time taken, pain/discomfort and taste. There were statistically significant differences between patients' perceptions of various aspects of the two treatment methods. All participants found the alternative treatment to be pain-free, quicker and overall more acceptable compared with conventional treatment. The conclusion drawn from the study was that air-abrasion/Carisolv gel treatment was a well-accepted and viable alternative to conventional local anaesthetic injection and drill for dental patients.
本研究的目的是调查使用空气喷砂/伢典凝胶去除龋齿在牙科患者治疗中是否是一种可接受且可行的替代方法。在普通诊所环境中，由同一名操作人员先用传统方法（局部麻醉注射/牙钻）治疗22名患者，然后再用替代方法（空气喷砂和伢典凝胶）进行治疗。使用改良牙科焦虑量表测量参与者术前的焦虑水平。使用视觉模拟量表评估他们术后对传统治疗和替代治疗各方面的焦虑/厌恶程度。对两种治疗的焦虑/厌恶程度进行比较并进行统计分析。结果显示，100%的受试者担心传统治疗的几个方面，包括注射时的疼痛/不适、麻醉剂的味道、组织麻木的持续时间、牙钻的噪音、其感觉振动和水冷剂。然而，75%的研究人群对空气喷砂技术的所有方面都感到满意，包括产生的灰尘、疼痛/不适和振动。总体而言，就所需时间、疼痛/不适和味道而言，研究人群发现伢典凝胶是一种可接受的龋齿去除替代方法。患者对两种治疗方法各方面的看法存在统计学上的显著差异。与传统治疗相比，所有参与者都发现替代治疗无痛、更快且总体上更可接受。该研究得出的结论是，对于牙科患者来说，空气喷砂/伢典凝胶治疗是传统局部麻醉注射和牙钻的一种广泛接受且可行的替代方法。
