Shanghai kou qiang yi xue = Shanghai journal of stomatology · 2016
[Comparison of minimally invasive extraction and traditional method in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molar].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xu Fang, Zhang Hui-Xia
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare minimally invasive extraction and traditional method in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molar.
METHODS: One hundred and sixty patients with impacted mandibular third molar were equally divided into two groups. Patients in the experimental group were treated with minimally invasive extraction, using implant machine and luxator, while patients in the control group were treated with traditional methods including use of orthodox chisel. The operation time, intraoperative and postoperative complications including deformation of extraction sockets, dry socket, limitation of mouth opening, pain and swelling, and fear were observed and compared between the two groups. The data were analyzed with SPSS18.0 software package.
RESULTS: The operation time was (17.32±1.01) min in the experimental group, significantly shorter than the control group which was (33.46±1.12）min (P<0.05); significant difference was found in the incidence of root fracture, medium or severe tooth sockets deformation and incidence of psychological fear during operation between the control group and experimental group(P<0.05); the degree of mouth opening after surgery, the incidence of moderate or severe pain after surgery was significantly lower in the experimental than in the control group(P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive extraction of mandibular impacted wisdom tooth is better than traditional method, with shorter operation time and less intraoperative and postoperative complications, which should be widely applied in clinic.
METHODS: One hundred and sixty patients with impacted mandibular third molar were equally divided into two groups. Patients in the experimental group were treated with minimally invasive extraction, using implant machine and luxator, while patients in the control group were treated with traditional methods including use of orthodox chisel. The operation time, intraoperative and postoperative complications including deformation of extraction sockets, dry socket, limitation of mouth opening, pain and swelling, and fear were observed and compared between the two groups. The data were analyzed with SPSS18.0 software package.
RESULTS: The operation time was (17.32±1.01) min in the experimental group, significantly shorter than the control group which was (33.46±1.12）min (P<0.05); significant difference was found in the incidence of root fracture, medium or severe tooth sockets deformation and incidence of psychological fear during operation between the control group and experimental group(P<0.05); the degree of mouth opening after surgery, the incidence of moderate or severe pain after surgery was significantly lower in the experimental than in the control group(P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive extraction of mandibular impacted wisdom tooth is better than traditional method, with shorter operation time and less intraoperative and postoperative complications, which should be widely applied in clinic.