上海口腔医学

上海口腔医学 ›› 2017, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (3): 297-301.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2017.03.014

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

MTA根尖屏障术治疗年轻恒牙根尖周炎的临床疗效及满意度评价

左园林, 李朝晖, 刘莞洁   

  1. 广州市花都区妇幼保健院（胡忠医院） 口腔科,广东 广州 510800
  • 收稿日期:2017-03-21 修回日期:2017-05-05 出版日期:2017-06-25 发布日期:2017-07-05
  • 通讯作者: 左园林,E-mail:zuo416@163.com
  • 作者简介:左园林(1981-),男,学士,主治医师
  • 基金资助:
    广州市花都区科技计划项目(15-HDWS-029)

Study on clinical efficacy and patients' satisfaction of MTA apical barrier technique in treatment of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation

ZUO Yuan-lin, LI Chao-hui, LIU Wan-jie   

  1. Department of Stomatology, Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital of Huadu District. Guangzhou 510800, Guangdong Province, China
  • Received:2017-03-21 Revised:2017-05-05 Online:2017-06-25 Published:2017-07-05

PDF (PC)

201

被引次数

5

摘要： 目的比较MTA根尖屏障术和Vitapex根尖诱导成形术对年轻恒牙根尖周炎的临床疗效,并进行患者满意度评价。方法将75例年轻恒牙根尖周炎患者随机分为对照组（n=37）和实验组（n=38）,对照组患者行Vitapex根尖诱导成形术,实验组患者行MTA根尖屏障术,比较2组患者在3、6、9个月及1年复查时的临床疗效,以及接受治疗的平均次数和平均周期,并对2组患者在就医环境、医护服务、后期保健指导、治疗费用、治疗周期及治疗效果等6个方面进行满意度评价。采用SPSS19.0软件包对2组患者的临床疗效、治疗次数和周期以及满意度等指标进行统计学分析。结果在3个月和6个月复查时,实验组的临床疗效优于对照组,但组间差异不显著（P>0.05）;在9个月和1年复查时,实验组的总有效率显著高于对照组（78.38%∶94.74%,P =0.037;75.68%∶97.37%,P=0.006）。实验组的治疗次数和治疗周期均显著低于对照组（P均<0.05）,分别为（3.24±0.39）次、（0.68±0.23）个月和（7.78±0.65）次、（8.24±2.95）个月。2组患者对就医环境、医护服务、后期保健指导及治疗周期的满意率无显著差异（P>0.05）,但在治疗费用和治疗效果2个调查项目上,实验组患者的满意率显著高于对照组（P均<0.05）。结论MTA根尖屏障术较使用Vitapex根尖诱导成形术临床疗效更优、治疗次数更少、治疗周期更短、患者满意度更高,适合在临床上推广应用。

关键词: MTA根尖屏障术, 年轻恒牙, 根尖周炎, 临床疗效, 满意度

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy of MTA apical barrier technique and Vitapex apexification in treatment of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation, and to evaluate the satisfaction of patients. METHODS: Seventy-five cases of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation were randomly divided into control group (n=37) and experimental group (n=38). Patients in the control group were treated with Vitapex apexification, while patients in the experimental group were treated with MTA apical barrier technique. The clinical efficacy of the two groups was compared at 3, 6, 9 months and 1 year after treatment, and the average treatment time and average treatment period were compared between 2 groups. The difference of patients' satisfaction with medical environment, health care service, late health care guidance, treatment cost, treatment period and treatment effect were compared between 2 groups. The clinical efficacy, treatment times and period, satisfaction of 2 groups were recorded and analyzed by using SPSS 19.0 software package. RESULTS: At 3 month and 6 month of revisit, the clinical efficacy of the experimental group was better than the control group, but there was no significant difference between 2 groups (P>0.05). At 9 months and 1 year of revisit, the total efficiency of the experimental group was significantly better than the ontrol group (78.38%∶94.74%, P=0.037;75.68%∶97.37%, P=0.006). The treatment time and treatment period of the experimental group were significantly lower than the control group (P<0.05), the values were (3.24±0.39) times, (0.68±0.23) months and (7.78±0.65) times, (8.24±2.95) months. Patients' satisfaction with medical treatment environment, health care service, late health care guidance and treatment period was not significant different between 2 groups (P>0.05). However, patients' satisfaction with treatment cost and treatment effect in the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: MTA apical barrier technique has better clinical efficacy, less treatment time, shorter treatment period and higher satisfaction than Vitapex apexification. It is suitable for clinical application.

Key words: MTA apical barrier technique, Young permanent tooth, Periapical inflammation, Clinical efficacy, Satisfaction

中图分类号: