de Brabander E C, Cattaneo G
Eastman Dental Center, Rochester, New York.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988 Apr;17(2):119-21. doi: 10.1016/s0901-5027(88)80164-4.
This investigation compared the results of 2 types of wound closure after mandibular third molar removal. In both the test group and the control group, the molars were removed using a mucoperiosteal flap as described by Szmyd; a wedge of tissue distal to the second molar was removed before closure to secure self-irrigation of the empty socket. The test group received a gauze drain partially submerged into the socket to secure more drainage and to prevent primary wound healing. Examinations were performed 2 days and 7 days after surgery, and pain, swelling, trismus and wound condition were recorded. Analyses of variance indicated that there was no significant difference between the 2 types of wound closure.
本研究比较了下颌第三磨牙拔除术后两种伤口闭合方式的效果。在试验组和对照组中,均按照Szmyd所述方法使用黏骨膜瓣拔除磨牙;在伤口闭合前,切除第二磨牙远中楔形组织,以确保拔牙窝的自冲洗。试验组在拔牙窝内放置一块部分浸入拔牙窝的纱布引流条,以增加引流并防止伤口一期愈合。术后2天和7天进行检查,记录疼痛、肿胀、张口受限和伤口情况。方差分析表明,两种伤口闭合方式之间无显著差异。