• 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

磁动力、压电与传统拔牙手术的比较:一项初步研究

Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study.

作者信息

Bennardo Francesco, Barone Selene, Vocaturo Camillo, Gheorghe Dorin Nicolae, Cosentini Giorgio, Antonelli Alessandro, Giudice Amerigo

机构信息

School of Dentistry, Department of Health Sciences, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Viale Europa, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.

Independent Researcher, Via Nicola Serra 80, 87100 Cosenza, Italy.

出版信息

Dent J (Basel). 2023 Feb 23;11(3):60. doi: 10.3390/dj11030060.

DOI:10.3390/dj11030060
PMID:36975557
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10047157/
Abstract

This pilot split-mouth study aimed to evaluate and compare early postoperative discomfort and wound healing outcomes in post-extraction sockets after dental extraction performed with a Magnetic Mallet (MM), piezosurgery, and conventional instruments (EudraCT 2022-003135-25). Twenty-two patients requiring the extraction of three non-adjacent teeth were included. Each tooth was randomly assigned to a specific treatment (control, MM, or piezosurgery). Outcome measures were the severity of symptoms after surgery, wound healing assessed at the 10-days follow-up visit, and the time taken to complete each procedure (excluding suturing). Two-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons tests were performed to evaluate eventual differences between groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the compared methods in postoperative pain and healing, and no additional complications were reported. MM required significantly less time to perform a tooth extraction, followed by conventional instruments and piezosurgery, in increasing order ( < 0.05). Overall, the present findings suggest the use of MM and piezosurgery as valid options for dental extractions. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm and extend this study's results, facilitating the selection of the optimal method for an individual patient depending on the patient's needs and preferences.

摘要

这项初步的双侧对照研究旨在评估和比较使用磁性牙锤(MM)、超声骨刀和传统器械进行拔牙后,拔牙窝早期术后不适和伤口愈合情况(欧盟临床试验注册号:2022-003135-25)。纳入了22例需要拔除三颗非相邻牙齿的患者。每颗牙齿随机分配至一种特定治疗方式(对照组、MM组或超声骨刀组)。观察指标包括术后症状严重程度、术后10天随访时评估的伤口愈合情况以及完成每个操作(不包括缝合)所需的时间。采用双向方差分析和Tukey多重比较检验来评估组间的最终差异。在术后疼痛和愈合方面,所比较的方法之间无统计学显著差异,且未报告其他并发症。MM进行拔牙所需时间显著更少,其次是传统器械和超声骨刀,顺序递增(<0.05)。总体而言,目前的研究结果表明,MM和超声骨刀可作为拔牙的有效选择。需要进一步的随机对照研究来证实和扩展本研究结果,以便根据患者的需求和偏好为个体患者选择最佳方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eaa/10047157/18dd7b9c0e45/dentistry-11-00060-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eaa/10047157/8683f276a961/dentistry-11-00060-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eaa/10047157/fd2f077e5919/dentistry-11-00060-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eaa/10047157/9314a0dc7d56/dentistry-11-00060-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eaa/10047157/694c6fc4c82c/dentistry-11-00060-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eaa/10047157/18dd7b9c0e45/dentistry-11-00060-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eaa/10047157/8683f276a961/dentistry-11-00060-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eaa/10047157/fd2f077e5919/dentistry-11-00060-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eaa/10047157/9314a0dc7d56/dentistry-11-00060-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eaa/10047157/694c6fc4c82c/dentistry-11-00060-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eaa/10047157/18dd7b9c0e45/dentistry-11-00060-g005.jpg