论文部分内容阅读
目的 :比较切线法阻力分析后推拔除阻生牙的方法与传统阻力分析拔除方法的临床疗效。方法 :将300例病例随机分为2组,甲组以传统阻力分析后分牙拔除方法,乙组按切线法阻力分析后完整拔除阻生牙,对比2组手术时间、术中及术后并发症等情交,并进行统计分析。结果:甲乙组所用时间分别为(22.39±13.13)min和(19.11±13.14)min,乙组(切线法)的拔牙时间短于甲组传统法(P<0.05)。术中、术后并发症除干槽症有统计学意义外,其他并发症差异无统计学意义。结论:两种方法均能顺利地完成下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术,术后并发症较低。乙组(切线法)有拔牙时间短,干槽症发生率低的优势,并能完整拔除阻生牙,可为阻生牙移植提供前提条件。故切线法是下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术一种较好的阻力分析及拔除的方法。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical curative effect of the traditional method of resistance analysis and extraction after the tangential method of resistance analysis. Methods: A total of 300 cases were randomly divided into two groups. Group A was divided into two groups according to traditional resistance analysis after fracture removal. Group B was completely extracted with resistance analysis by tangential method. Comparing the operation time, intraoperative and postoperative complications Sympathy and other emotional, and statistical analysis. Results: The time spent in arm A and arm B was (22.39 ± 13.13) min and (19.11 ± 13.14) min, while arm B (tangential arm) was shorter than arm A (P <0.05). Intraoperative and postoperative complications in addition to dry mouth symptoms were statistically significant, the other complications were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Both methods can successfully complete the mandibular impacted third molars extraction and the postoperative complications are low. Group B (tangent method) has the advantages of short extraction time, low incidence of dry socket, and the complete removal of impacted teeth, which can provide preconditions for implanted dental implants. Therefore, the tangential method is the third mandibular impacted mandibular excision a better resistance analysis and removal method.