不同方法治疗慢性根尖炎的效果对比观察  

The efficacy observation of different methods in treating chronic apical periodontitis

作　　者：王星[1] 叶艳[1] 王丽[1] 

机构地区：[1]西安市北方医院口腔科,陕西西安710043

出　　处：《临床医学研究与实践》2016年第23期22-23,共2页Clinical Research and Practice

摘　　要：目的对比分析一次性根管治疗与传统根管填充法治疗慢性根尖炎的临床效果。方法将2013年2月至2013年12月我院收治的120例慢性根尖炎患者根据其入院顺序分为A组和B组,各60例。A组采用一次性根管填充治疗法治疗,B组采用传统根管填充法治疗。治疗后对比两组患者的近、远期疗效。结果两组患者均治疗成功,未见器械折断现象。治疗后,A组患者疼痛评价各等级占比与B组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);6个月后,A组和B组患者的痊愈率分别为80.00%和86.67%,组间差异不明显(P>0.05),然而,A组患者的PLI、BI、PD水平明显高于B组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论传统根管填充法与一次性根管填充法治疗慢性根尖炎的近远期痊愈率无明显差异,但传统根管填充法治疗时,患牙牙周健康状况更好,PLI、BI、PD水平更低。Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of one-time root canal therapy and traditional root canal filling in the treatment of chronic periapical periodontitis. Methods One hundred and twenty chronic apical periodontitis patients admitted in our hospital from February 2013 to December 2013 were divided into group A and group B according to the order of admission, with 60 cases in each group. Patients in group A received one-time root canal filling treatment, while patients in group B received traditional root canal filling, the short-term and long-term clinical efficacy between the two groups were compared. Results All the patients were successfully treated, with no instrument broken. After the treatment, the percentage patients in the four pain grades between the two groups had no significant difference （P〉0.05）. Six months later, the effective rate of group A and group B were 80% and 86.67% respectively, the difference showed no statistically significant （P〉0.05）, the levels of PLI, BI, and PD in group A was lower than that in group B （P〈0.05）. Conclusion One-time root canal filling treatment and traditional root canal filling have equal efficacy for patients with chronic apici- tis in short-term and long-term effective rate. However, traditional root tube filling has a better periodontal condition, the levels of PLI, BI, and PD is significantly lower.

关 键 词：慢性根尖炎 根管治疗 疼痛分级 

分 类 号：R781[医药卫生—口腔医学]