Zuo Yuan-Lin, Li Chao-Hui, Liu Wan-Jie
Department of Stomatology, Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital of Huadu District. Guangzhou 510800, Guangdong Province, China. E-mail:
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2017 Jun;26(3):297-301.
To compare the clinical efficacy of MTA apical barrier technique and Vitapex apexification in treatment of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation, and to evaluate the satisfaction of patients.
Seventy-five cases of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation were randomly divided into control group (n=37) and experimental group (n=38). Patients in the control group were treated with Vitapex apexification, while patients in the experimental group were treated with MTA apical barrier technique. The clinical efficacy of the two groups was compared at 3, 6, 9 months and 1 year after treatment, and the average treatment time and average treatment period were compared between 2 groups. The difference of patients' satisfaction with medical environment, health care service, late health care guidance, treatment cost, treatment period and treatment effect were compared between 2 groups. The clinical efficacy, treatment times and period, satisfaction of 2 groups were recorded and analyzed by using SPSS 19.0 software package.
At 3 month and 6 month of revisit, the clinical efficacy of the experimental group was better than the control group, but there was no significant difference between 2 groups (P>0.05). At 9 months and 1 year of revisit, the total efficiency of the experimental group was significantly better than the control group (78.38%:94.74%, P=0.037；75.68%∶97.37%, P=0.006). The treatment time and treatment period of the experimental group were significantly lower than the control group (P<0.05), the values were (3.24±0.39) times, (0.68±0.23) months and (7.78±0.65) times, (8.24±2.95) months. Patients' satisfaction with medical treatment environment, health care service, late health care guidance and treatment period was not significant different between 2 groups (P>0.05). However, patients' satisfaction with treatment cost and treatment effect in the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group (P<0.05).
MTA apical barrier technique has better clinical efficacy, less treatment time, shorter treatment period and higher satisfaction than Vitapex apexification. It is suitable for clinical application.
比较MTA根尖屏障技术与Vitapex根尖诱导成形术治疗年轻恒牙根尖周炎的临床疗效，并评估患者满意度。
将75例年轻恒牙根尖周炎患者随机分为对照组（n = 37）和试验组（n = 38）。对照组患者采用Vitapex根尖诱导成形术治疗，试验组患者采用MTA根尖屏障技术治疗。比较两组患者治疗后3、6、9个月及1年的临床疗效，比较两组的平均治疗次数和平均治疗周期。比较两组患者对医疗环境、医护服务、后期保健指导、治疗费用、治疗周期及治疗效果的满意度差异。采用SPSS 19.0软件包记录并分析两组的临床疗效、治疗次数和周期、满意度。
复诊3个月和6个月时，试验组临床疗效优于对照组，但两组间差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。复诊9个月和1年时，试验组总有效率显著优于对照组（78.38%∶94.74%，P = 0.037；75.68%∶97.37%，P = 0.006）。试验组的治疗次数和治疗周期显著低于对照组（P<0.05），分别为（3.24±0.39）次、（0.68±0.23）个月和（7.78±0.65）次、（8.24±2.95）个月。两组患者对医疗环境、医护服务、后期保健指导及治疗周期的满意度差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。然而，试验组患者对治疗费用和治疗效果的满意度显著高于对照组（P<0.05）。
MTA根尖屏障技术较Vitapex根尖诱导成形术具有更好的临床疗效、更少的治疗次数、更短的治疗周期及更高的满意度，适合临床应用。
