牙槽嵴保存的翻瓣与不翻瓣技术的比较研究：一项临床双盲研究。
A Comparative Study of the Flap and Flapless Techniques of Ridge Preservation: A Clinical Double-Blinded Study.
作者信息
Guruprasad Yadavalli, Dhurubatha J, Kumar Santosh, Sultana Rafat, Bakshi Heer T, Desai Dhriti T
机构信息
Department of Dentistry, Vijaynagar Institute of Medical Sciences, VIMS Campus, Cantonment, Ballari, Karnataka, India.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Government Dental College and Hospital, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India.
出版信息
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2023 Jul;15(Suppl 2):S1065-S1068. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_220_23. Epub 2023 Jul 11.
INTRODUCTION
Extraction of the tooth often leads to crestal bone loss. It is difficult for clinicians to decide on the technique of extraction. Many studies on flap and flapless have led to confusion. Hence it becomes necessary to conduct this study to show the efficient ridge preservation technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twenty patients were selected for this study. It was divided into the flap and flapless groups. In group A, the flap was elevated, tooth extraction was undertaken, the socket was cleaned, a graft was placed, a barrier was placed, and a suture was placed. In group B all the procedures were the same but without flap elevation. After surgery, clinical and radiographical parameters were recorded.
RESULT
Flapless technique showed a better result in bone preservation. There was a low vertical bone loss in the flapless technique.
CONCLUSION
Both techniques showed bone loss. But the flapless technique gave better results.
引言
拔牙常常会导致牙槽嵴骨吸收。临床医生很难决定拔牙技术。许多关于翻瓣和不翻瓣的研究导致了混淆。因此，有必要进行这项研究以展示有效的牙槽嵴保存技术。
材料与方法
本研究选取了20名患者。将其分为翻瓣组和不翻瓣组。在A组中，掀起翻瓣，进行拔牙，清理牙槽窝，植入移植物，放置屏障膜，并进行缝合。在B组中，所有操作相同，但不掀起翻瓣。术后记录临床和影像学参数。
结果
不翻瓣技术在骨保存方面显示出更好的效果。不翻瓣技术的垂直骨吸收较低。
结论
两种技术均显示有骨吸收。但不翻瓣技术效果更佳。
Zotero 插件