检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:蒋金吱 先德彬 Jiang Jinzi;Xian Debin(Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University,Operating Room,Luzhou,Sichuan 646000,China;Department of Stomatology Affiliated Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Southwest Medical University,Luzhou,Sichuan 646000,China)
机构地区:[1]西南医科大学附属医院手术室,四川泸州646000 [2]西南医科大学附属中医医院口腔科,四川泸州646000
出 处:《医药前沿》2019年第12期83-83,共1页Journal of Frontiers of Medicine
摘 要:目的:探讨微创拔牙在阻生牙齿拔除中的应用,旨在为临床上更好的对阻生牙齿拔除进行治疗提供依据。方法:以2017年5月-2018年5月间来我院口腔科治疗的100例阻生牙齿患者作为研究对象,使用随机分组原则,将入选对象分为两组,实验组和对照组各50例。对照组使用常规拔牙方法,而实验组则接受微创拔牙手段进行拔牙。结果:实验组中使用微创手术进行拔牙所用时间长于对照组,术中出血量及伤口愈合时间少于对照组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:微创拔牙法在阻生牙齿拔除中具有较好的效果,临床上值得推广应用。Objective To investigate the application of minimally invasive extraction in the extraction ofimpacted teeth, and to provide a basis for clinically better treatment of impacted teeth.Methods The above subjects were divided into experimental group and control group by random number table method.The control group used conventional tooth extraction technique,and the experimental group used minimally invasive extraction technique.Results The extraction time of the experimental group was longer than that of the control group. The intraoperative blood loss and wound healing time were lower than the control group. There were significant differences between the two groups(P < 0.05).Conclusion The minimally invasive extraction method has a good application space in the extraction of the impacted teeth, and it is worthy of popularization and application in clinical practice.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.51