一次性根管治疗慢性根尖周炎疗效观察  

Single-visit root canal treatment for chronic periapical periodontitis

作　　者：孙玉亮[1] 梁学萍[1] 赵今[1] 顾敏[2] 

机构地区：[1]新疆医科大学第一附属医院牙体牙髓科,乌鲁木齐830054 [2]新疆医科大学口腔医学院,乌鲁木齐830054

出　　处：《中华实用诊断与治疗杂志》2016年第9期881-882,共2页Journal of Chinese Practical Diagnosis and Therapy

基　　金：新疆维吾尔自治区自然科学基金(2015211C093)

摘　　要：目的比较慢性根尖周炎患者采用一次性根管治疗、二次根管治疗的疗效和安全性。方法 200例慢性根尖周炎患者,100例行一次性根管治疗者为一次法组,100例采用二次根管治疗者为二次法组,2组均采用机用ProTaper和超声技术进行根管治疗。采用视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)评定治疗前及术后24h、7d、1a疼痛程度,比较2组术后24h、7d牙龈肿胀发生率;术后1a影像学检查评定2组治疗效果。结果 2组治疗前VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后7d及1a,2组VAS评分均较治疗前明显降低(P<0.05);术后24h、7d、1a,一次法组VAS评分分别为1.61±1.25、0.78±0.47、0.52±0.19,二次法组分别为1.39±1.32、0.82±0.60、0.57±0.27,2组比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后24h,一次法组牙龈肿胀发生率(17%)高于二次法组(7%)(P<0.05),但2组术后7d牙龈肿胀发生率(9%vs 5%)比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);一次法组治疗成功率(87%)与二次法组(89%)比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论慢性根尖周炎采用一次性根管治疗可基本达到与二次根管治疗相同的疗效和安全性。Objective To compare the efficacy and the safety of single versus two-visit root canal treatment for chronic periapical periodontitis. Methods A total of 200 patients were randomly divided into single-visit group and two-visit group, with 100 patients in each group. Both two groups received treatment with ProTaper and ultrasonic irrigation unit. Visual analogue scale （VAS） was adopted to evaluate the pain degree before treatment and in 24 h, 7 d and 1 year after treatment. The incidence of gingival swelling was compared between two groups in 24 h, 7 d and 1 year after treatment. The therapeutic effect was evaluated in 1 year after operation by imaging examination. Results There was no significant difference in VAS scores between two groups before treatment （P〉0.05）. The VAS scores were significantly lower in 7 d and 1 year after operation than those before operation in both groups （P〈 0.05）. There were no significant differences in VAS scores in 24 h, 7 d and 1 year after operation between single-visit group （1.61±.25, 0.78±0.47, 0.52±0.19） and two-visit group （1. 39±1. 32, 0. 82±0. 60, 0. 57±0. 27） （P〈0.05）. The incidence of gingival swelling was significantly higher in single-visit group （17 %） than that in two-visit group （7 %） in 24 h after operation （P〈0.05）. There was no significant difference in the incidence of gingival swelling in 7 d after operation between two groups （9 % vs 5 %） （P〈0.05）. And there was no significant difference in the successful rate between single-visit group （87%） and two-visit group （89%） （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Single-visit root canal treatment can achieve the same efficacy and safety for chronic periapical periodontitis as the two-visit root canal treatment.

关 键 词：慢性根尖周炎 根管治疗 

分 类 号：R781.34[医药卫生—口腔医学]