• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[下颌阻生智齿拔除术中分根法与去骨法的对比研究]

[A comparative study of split-root and medial resistance removal in extraction of medially impacted tooth].

作者信息

Sun Ren-yi, Fang Ping-juan, Xiao Jin, Liu Deng-feng, Xu Xing-qiao, Hu Rong-dang

机构信息

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Affiliated Stomatology Hospital, Wenzhou Medical College, Zhejiang Province, China.

出版信息

Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2012 Jun;21(3):344-9.

PMID:22885502
Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the operating time, root fracture and postoperative complications between split-root extraction and medial resistance removal in extraction of mandibular small-angle impacted third molars, to evaluate the advantages of split-root extraction in medially impacted tooth extraction.

METHODS

Forty male patients with bilaterally mandibular medial small-angle impacted third molars, having multiple roots in panoramic films, were selected. The impacted teeth on one side were extracted by using split-root method, while the similar impacted teeth on the other side were extracted by using medial resistance removal method. The operating time, root fracture, postoperative pain, facial edema, and mouth opening were recorded. SPSS11.5 software package was used and paired t test was performed to analyze the data.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in operating time and root fracture between the two methods (P<0.05). In the split-root group, the operating time was shorter and root fracture were less. After 24 hours, facial edema, limited mouth opening, and pain of the split-root group was less severe than that of the medial resistance removal group, differences were significant(P<0.05). After 72 hours, limited mouth opening of the split-root group was milder than that of the resistance removal group, the difference was significant (P<0.05). After 120 hours, there was no significant difference of any complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In extraction of mandibular medial small-angle impacted third molars with multiple roots, the operating time of split-root extraction is shorter. The root fracture possibility of split-root extraction is smaller, and postoperative complications are less common.

摘要

目的

比较下颌小角度阻生第三磨牙拔除术中分根法与去骨法的手术时间、牙根折断情况及术后并发症,评估分根法在下颌近中阻生牙拔除术中的优势。

方法

选取40例双侧下颌近中低位阻生第三磨牙且全景片显示为多根牙的男性患者。一侧患牙采用分根法拔除,另一侧患牙采用去骨法拔除。记录手术时间、牙根折断情况、术后疼痛、面部肿胀及开口度。采用SPSS11.5软件包,进行配对t检验分析数据。

结果

两种方法在手术时间和牙根折断情况方面存在显著差异(P<0.05)。分根组手术时间短,牙根折断少。术后24小时,分根组面部肿胀、开口受限及疼痛程度均低于去骨组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后72小时,分根组开口受限程度轻于去骨组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后120小时,两组各项并发症差异无统计学意义。

结论

在下颌近中低位阻生多根第三磨牙拔除术中,分根法手术时间短,牙根折断可能性小,术后并发症少。

相似文献

1
[A comparative study of split-root and medial resistance removal in extraction of medially impacted tooth].[下颌阻生智齿拔除术中分根法与去骨法的对比研究]
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2012 Jun;21(3):344-9.
2
[Comparison of minimally invasive extraction and traditional method in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molar].[微创拔牙与传统方法在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的比较]
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2016 Oct;25(5):613-616.
3
[Comparison of two kinds of procedures used in the removal of horizontal impacted mandibular third molars].[两种用于拔除下颌水平阻生第三磨牙的手术方法的比较]
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2010 Feb;28(1):71-3.
4
[Evaluation of the results of high-speed handpiece and minimally invasive extraction in impacted mandibular third molar extraction].[高速手机与微创拔牙在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的效果评估]
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2015 Aug;24(4):489-92.
5
Influence of primary and secondary closure of surgical wound after impacted mandibular third molar removal on postoperative pain and swelling--a comparative and split mouth study.下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术后手术创口一期缝合与二期缝合对术后疼痛及肿胀的影响——一项对比性双侧对照研究
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Feb;68(2):309-12. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.04.060. Epub 2010 Jan 15.
6
[Clinical evaluation of mandibular impacted third molar removed without surgical flaps].[无手术切口拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙的临床评估]
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2020 Apr;29(2):221-224.
7
Influence of immediate post-extraction socket irrigation on development of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar removal: a prospective split-mouth study, preliminary report.即刻拔牙窝冲洗对下颌第三磨牙拔除后牙槽突炎发展的影响:一项前瞻性分牙窝对照研究,初步报告。
Br Dent J. 2012 Dec;213(12):597-601. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.1134.
8
Radiographical evaluation of bone quality after extraction of mandibular impacted and semi-impacted third molars.下颌阻生及半阻生第三磨牙拔除后骨质量的影像学评估
Minerva Stomatol. 2011 Jul-Aug;60(7-8):359-64.
9
[Effect of triangular flap design and healing procedure on the sequelae after extraction of impacted lower third molars].[三角形瓣设计及愈合程序对下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术后后遗症的影响]
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2019 Oct 18;51(5):949-953. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.05.026.
10
How effective is collagen resorbable membrane placement after partially impacted mandibular third molar surgery on postoperative morbidity? A prospective randomized comparative study.在下颌第三磨牙部分阻生手术后放置可吸收胶原膜对术后发病率的效果如何?一项前瞻性随机对照研究。
BMC Oral Health. 2017 Oct 5;17(1):126. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0416-z.