• 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

在下颌第三磨牙手术中,比较超声骨刀与传统高速手机手术的术后并发症:一项随机对照临床研究。

Comparison of postoperative morbidity between piezoelectric surgery and conventional rotary instruments in mandibular third molar surgery: a split-mouth clinical study.

机构信息

Pamukkale University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Periodontology Kınıklı Campus 20160 Denizli, Turkey

出版信息

Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2021 May 1;26(3):e269-e275. doi: 10.4317/medoral.24085.

DOI:10.4317/medoral.24085
PMID:33772570
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8141306/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The extraction of impacted third molar teeth is a common procedure in maxillofacial surgery. The aim of this study was to compare of piezoelectric surgical technique with the one with conventional rotary instruments in terms of edema, trismus and pain, in mandibular third molar surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

20 individuals with symmetrically impacted lower mandibular third molars and 40 teeth were included in the study. Third molars on the left side of each patient were removed with piezosurgery, while the counterparts on the right side were removed with conventional rotary instruments. Postoperatively, the same antibiotic, analgesic, and mouthwash were recommended to both groups. Ultrasound, edema, trismus measurements were performed before surgery, postoperative, postoperative day 2 and postoperative day 7. VAS scale was used to evaluate the pain.

RESULTS

The average age of 20 individuals included in the study was found to be 21.85 ± 3.08 years. The operation time of the individuals who underwent the surgery with conventional rotary instruments was found to be 12 minutes 31.70 ± 167.03 seconds, and the operation time in the Piezosurgery group was 19 minutes 10.60 ± 306.59 seconds. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of trismus, edema, and pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Piezosurgery is a safe method that can be used in molar removal, but in this split-mouth study, it is not found advantageous in terms of postoperative morbidity due to the longer working time compared to the one performed with conventional rotary instruments.

摘要

背景

拔除阻生的第三磨牙是颌面外科常见的手术。本研究旨在比较超声骨刀与传统涡轮手机在下颌第三磨牙手术中在肿胀、张口度和疼痛方面的差异。

材料和方法

本研究纳入了 20 名双侧下颌对称阻生第三磨牙的患者,共 40 颗牙。每位患者的左侧第三磨牙采用超声骨刀法拔除,右侧采用传统涡轮手机拔除。术后两组患者均使用相同的抗生素、镇痛药和漱口液。在术前、术后、术后第 2 天和第 7 天进行超声检查、肿胀和张口度测量。采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)评估疼痛。

结果

本研究共纳入 20 名患者,平均年龄为 21.85 ± 3.08 岁。采用传统涡轮手机手术的患者手术时间为 12 分钟 31.70 ± 167.03 秒,采用超声骨刀法的患者手术时间为 19 分钟 10.60 ± 306.59 秒。两组患者在张口度、肿胀和疼痛方面无显著差异。

结论

超声骨刀是一种安全的拔牙方法,但与传统涡轮手机相比,由于其工作时间较长,在本研究中并未发现其在术后发病率方面具有优势。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/391d/8141306/3054e1601cf0/medoral-26-e269-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/391d/8141306/20d273ec5fde/medoral-26-e269-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/391d/8141306/e64f5f11964c/medoral-26-e269-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/391d/8141306/3054e1601cf0/medoral-26-e269-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/391d/8141306/20d273ec5fde/medoral-26-e269-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/391d/8141306/e64f5f11964c/medoral-26-e269-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/391d/8141306/3054e1601cf0/medoral-26-e269-g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison of postoperative morbidity between piezoelectric surgery and conventional rotary instruments in mandibular third molar surgery: a split-mouth clinical study.在下颌第三磨牙手术中,比较超声骨刀与传统高速手机手术的术后并发症:一项随机对照临床研究。
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2021 May 1;26(3):e269-e275. doi: 10.4317/medoral.24085.
2
A prospective split-mouth clinical study: comparison of piezosurgery and conventional rotary instruments in impacted third molar surgery.一项前瞻性半口临床研究:阻生第三磨牙手术中压电手术与传统旋转器械的比较。
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Mar;24(1):51-55. doi: 10.1007/s10006-019-00817-7. Epub 2019 Dec 7.
3
A comparative analysis of postoperative morbidity and alveolar bone regeneration following surgical extraction of ımpacted lower third molar teeth using piezosurgery and conventional ınstruments: a split-mouth clinical ınvestigation.超声骨刀与传统器械在下颌第三磨牙阻生齿拔除术中术后并发症及牙槽骨再生的对比分析:一项随机对照临床研究。
Eur J Med Res. 2024 Sep 14;29(1):460. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-02051-8.
4
Comparative Study of Piezoelectric and Rotary Osteotomy Technique for Third Molar Impaction.第三磨牙阻生的压电与旋转截骨技术对比研究
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017 Jan 1;18(1):60-64. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1990.
5
Conventional Rotary Technique and Piezosurgical Technique in the Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar: A Comparative Study.传统旋转技术与超声骨刀技术在下颌第三磨牙阻生拔除术中的应用比较
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2023 Feb 1;24(2):97-102. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3469.
6
Postoperative evaluation of Er:YAG laser, piezosurgery, and rotary systems used for osteotomy in mandibular third-molar extractions.用于下颌第三磨牙拔除的骨切开术中的 Er:YAG 激光、超声骨刀和旋转系统的术后评估。
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021 Jan;49(1):64-69. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2020.11.010. Epub 2020 Nov 28.
7
Piezo-surgery technique and intramuscular dexamethasone injection to reduce postoperative pain after impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a randomized clinical trial.超声骨刀法结合肌内注射地塞米松减轻下颌阻生第三磨牙术后疼痛的随机临床研究。
BMC Oral Health. 2021 Aug 11;21(1):393. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01759-x.
8
Piezoelectric Versus Conventional Rotary Techniques for Impacted Third Molar Extraction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.压电技术与传统旋转技术用于拔除阻生第三磨牙:一项随机对照试验的Meta分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Oct;94(41):e1685. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001685.
9
Piezosurgery versus conventional rotary surgery for impacted third molars: A randomised, split-mouth, clinical pilot trial.超声骨刀与传统涡轮机微创拔牙术用于阻生第三磨牙拔除的随机对照临床试验
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2024 Jan 1;29(1):e1-e8. doi: 10.4317/medoral.25929.
10
Does the piezoelectric surgical technique produce fewer postoperative sequelae after lower third molar surgery than conventional rotary instruments? A systematic review and meta analysis.与传统旋转器械相比,压电手术技术在下颌第三磨牙手术后产生的术后后遗症是否更少?一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Mar;45(3):383-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.10.005. Epub 2015 Nov 11.

引用本文的文献

1
Piezoelectric and conventional rotary techniques for mandibular impacted third molar extraction: A comparative study.下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除的压电与传统旋转技术:一项比较研究。
Bioinformation. 2025 Apr 30;21(4):699-702. doi: 10.6026/973206300210699. eCollection 2025.
2
The Comparative Efficacy of Burs Versus Piezoelectric Techniques in Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review Following the PRISMA Guidelines.第三磨牙手术中涡轮钻与压电技术的比较疗效:一项遵循PRISMA指南的系统评价
Medicina (Kaunas). 2024 Dec 12;60(12):2049. doi: 10.3390/medicina60122049.
3
Piezosurgery in Third Molar Extractions: A Systematic Review.

本文引用的文献

1
A prospective split-mouth clinical study: comparison of piezosurgery and conventional rotary instruments in impacted third molar surgery.一项前瞻性半口临床研究:阻生第三磨牙手术中压电手术与传统旋转器械的比较。
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Mar;24(1):51-55. doi: 10.1007/s10006-019-00817-7. Epub 2019 Dec 7.
2
"Piezosurgery vs bur in impacted mandibular third molar surgery: Evaluation of postoperative sequelae".压电外科手术与涡轮钻在下颌阻生第三磨牙手术中的应用:术后后遗症评估
J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019 Jul-Sep;9(3):259-262. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2019.06.007. Epub 2019 Jun 12.
3
PRF improves wound healing and postoperative discomfort after harvesting subepithelial connective tissue graft from palate: a randomized controlled trial.
第三磨牙拔除术中的压电外科手术:一项系统评价
J Pers Med. 2024 Dec 19;14(12):1158. doi: 10.3390/jpm14121158.
4
Application of an ultrasonic bone knife combined with a dental electric motor in the extraction of mandibular middle and low impacted teeth.超声骨刀联合牙科电钻在下颌中低位埋伏阻生牙拔除术中的应用
BMC Oral Health. 2024 Jan 4;24(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03788-0.
5
Articaine versus lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in posterior mandible implant surgeries: a randomized controlled trial.阿替卡因与利多卡因在下颌后牙种植术中的应用:一项随机对照试验。
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2023 Mar 1;28(2):e108-e115. doi: 10.4317/medoral.25475.
6
3D-printed titanium surgical guides for extraction of horizontally impacted lower third molars.用于拔除水平阻生下颌第三磨牙的3D打印钛制手术导板。
Clin Oral Investig. 2023 Apr;27(4):1499-1507. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04769-3. Epub 2022 Nov 14.
7
A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Piezo Versus Conventional Rotary Surgery for Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars.一项比较超声骨刀与传统旋转手术拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙的前瞻性随机对照临床试验。
Bioengineering (Basel). 2022 Jun 25;9(7):276. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering9070276.
8
Piezo-surgery technique and intramuscular dexamethasone injection to reduce postoperative pain after impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a randomized clinical trial.超声骨刀法结合肌内注射地塞米松减轻下颌阻生第三磨牙术后疼痛的随机临床研究。
BMC Oral Health. 2021 Aug 11;21(1):393. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01759-x.
富血小板纤维蛋白(PRF)改善腭部黏膜下结缔组织移植术后伤口愈合和术后不适:一项随机对照试验。
Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Jan;24(1):425-436. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02934-9. Epub 2019 May 18.
4
Is Piezoelectric Surgery Really Harmless to Soft Tissue?压电外科手术对软组织真的无害吗?
J Craniofac Surg. 2019 Oct;30(7):1966-1969. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005598.
5
Piezosurgery vs conventional rotary instrument in the third molar surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.第三磨牙手术中压电外科手术与传统旋转器械的比较:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析
J Dent Sci. 2018 Dec;13(4):342-349. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2016.09.006. Epub 2018 Aug 4.
6
Osteotomy in Genioplasty by Piezosurgery.压电手术在颏成形术中的截骨术
J Craniofac Surg. 2018 Nov;29(8):2156-2159. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004773.
7
Clinical and Radiographic Characteristics as Predictive Factors of Swelling and Trismus after Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Longitudinal Approach.下颌第三磨牙手术后肿胀和牙关紧闭的临床及影像学特征作为预测因素:纵向研究方法
Pain Res Manag. 2018 Apr 23;2018:7938492. doi: 10.1155/2018/7938492. eCollection 2018.
8
Piezosurgery versus Rotatory Osteotomy in Mandibular Impacted Third Molar Extraction.下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中压电外科手术与旋转截骨术的比较。
Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Jan-Jun;7(1):5-10. doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_38_16.
9
Piezoelectric technology in otolaryngology, and head and neck surgery: a review.耳鼻喉科及头颈外科中的压电技术:综述
J Laryngol Otol. 2017 Jul;131(S2):S12-S18. doi: 10.1017/S0022215117000767. Epub 2017 Apr 17.
10
The comparison of edema and ecchymosis after piezoelectric and conventional osteotomy in rhinoplasty.隆鼻术中压电截骨与传统截骨后水肿和瘀斑的比较。
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Feb;274(2):861-865. doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-4306-9. Epub 2016 Sep 17.