MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций
Медицинская библиотека · European journal of paediatric dentistry · 2006

Clinical evidence and literature to compare two different therapeutic protocols in tooth avulsion.

Giannetti L, Murri A

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеОбзорПеревод пока не подготовлен

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.

Для цитирования: Giannetti L, Murri A. Clinical evidence and literature to compare two different therapeutic protocols in tooth avulsion.. European journal of paediatric dentistry. 2006.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.