European journal of paediatric dentistry · 2006
Clinical evidence and literature to compare two different therapeutic protocols in tooth avulsion.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Giannetti L, Murri A
Аннотация
AIM: This is to assess the priority in tooth avulsion: replantation as quickly as possible and deferred endodontic treatment, or replantation and elimination of every irritating stimulus for the periodontal ligament. The objective is to establish a univocal protocol by analysing and comparing the various components of these therapeutic procedures.
STUDY DESIGN: 20 patients were selected and divided into 2 groups: in group A we focused our attention on the rapidity of replantation, in group B we focused on the elimination of the necrotic pulp and every possible irritating stimulus that might lead to root resorption of inflammatory nature.
RESULTS: Clinically, dental mobility seems to be greater in the first group. However after 15 days teeth have a comparable mobility and after one month they all show a mobility degree 1. Radiographically a greater incidence of resorption can be observed in group A compared to group B as in the first one a higher number of replanted teeth undergo resorption. Such lesions have the tendency to remain constant or even increase.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study seem to take only one direction: extraoral endodontic therapy.
STUDY DESIGN: 20 patients were selected and divided into 2 groups: in group A we focused our attention on the rapidity of replantation, in group B we focused on the elimination of the necrotic pulp and every possible irritating stimulus that might lead to root resorption of inflammatory nature.
RESULTS: Clinically, dental mobility seems to be greater in the first group. However after 15 days teeth have a comparable mobility and after one month they all show a mobility degree 1. Radiographically a greater incidence of resorption can be observed in group A compared to group B as in the first one a higher number of replanted teeth undergo resorption. Such lesions have the tendency to remain constant or even increase.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study seem to take only one direction: extraoral endodontic therapy.