[1]朱玉梅,钟玉琳,刘伶英,等.基于根管治疗联合开窗引流术在牙源性颌骨囊肿患者中的临床应用效果[J].医学信息,2024,37(20):139-142.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.20.029]
　ZHU Yumei,ZHONG Yulin,LIU Lingying,et al.Clinical Application Effect of Root Canal Therapy Combined with Fenestration Drainage in Patients with Odontogenic Jaw Cyst[J].Journal of Medical Information,2024,37(20):139-142.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.20.029]
点击复制

基于根管治疗联合开窗引流术在牙源性颌骨囊肿患者中的临床应用效果()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
37卷
期数:
2024年20期
页码:
139-142
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2024-10-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Clinical Application Effect of Root Canal Therapy Combined with Fenestration Drainage in Patients with Odontogenic Jaw Cyst
文章编号:
1006-1959（2024）20-0139-04
作者:
朱玉梅; 钟玉琳; 刘伶英; 唐绍荣
安远县人民医院口腔科，江西 安远 342100
Author(s):
ZHU Yumei; ZHONG Yulin; LIU Lingying; TANG Shaorong
Department of Stomatology,Anyuan County People’s Hospital,Anyuan 342100,Jiangxi,China
关键词:
牙源性颌骨囊肿; 开窗引流术; 根管治疗; 完整刮治术
Keywords:
Odontogenic jaw cyst; Fenestration drainage; Root canal therapy; Complete curettage
分类号:
R782
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.20.029
摘要:
目的 研究根管治疗联合开窗引流术在牙源性颌骨囊肿患者中的临床应用效果。方法 以2022年1月-2023年6月安远县人民医院收治的72例牙源性颌骨囊肿患者为研究对象，行随机数字表法分为对照组与观察组，各36例。两组均给予根管治疗，在此基础上，对照组采用传统完整刮治术治疗，观察组应用开窗引流术治疗，比较两组手术指标（手术时间、术中出血量）、囊腔变化情况（囊腔体积减少量、囊腔面积减少量、骨密度值）、疼痛程度[视觉模拟评分（VAS）]、并发症、治疗效果及复发情况。结果 观察组手术时间、术中出血量、术后VAS评分均少于对照组（P＜0.05）。术后3个月，观察组囊腔体积减少量、囊腔面积减少量、骨密度值均大于对照组（P＜0.05）。两组治疗后VAS评分均低于治疗前，且观察组低于对照组（P＜0.05）。观察组并发症发生率为5.56%，低于对照组的25.00%（P＜0.05）。观察组治疗有效率为97.22%，高于对照组的80.56%（P＜0.05）。观察组复发率为2.78%，低于对照组的16.67%（P＜0.05）。结论 根管治疗联合开窗引流术手术时间短、出血少，可有效减轻牙源性颌骨囊肿患者疼痛程度，缩小其囊腔，降低患者的并发症及复发风险，具有较高治疗有效性及安全性。
Abstract:
Objective To study the clinical effect of root canal therapy combined with fenestration and drainage in patients with odontogenic jaw cysts.Methods A total of 72 patients with odontogenic jaw cysts admitted to Anyuan County People’s Hospital from January 2022 to June 2023 were randomly divided into control group and observation group, with 36 patients in each group. Both groups were treated with root canal therapy. On this basis, the control group was treated with traditional complete curettage, and the observation group was treated with fenestration drainage. The surgical indexes (operation time, intraoperative blood loss), cystic cavity changes (cystic cavity volume reduction, cystic cavity area reduction, bone mineral density), pain degree [visual analogue scale (VAS)], complications, treatment effect and recurrence were compared between the two groups.Results The operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative VAS score of the observation group were less than those of the control group (P<0.05). At 3 months after operation, the reduction of cyst volume, cyst area and bone mineral density in the observation group were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The VAS scores of the two groups after treatment were lower than those before treatment, and the observation group was lower than the control group (P<0.05). The incidence of complications in the observation group was 5.56%, which was lower than 25.00% in the control group (P<0.05). The effective rate of treatment in the observation group was 97.22%, which was higher than 80.56% in the control group (P<0.05). The recurrence rate of the observation group was 2.78%, which was lower than 16.67% of the control group (P<0.05).Conclusion Root canal therapy combined with fenestration drainage has short operation time and less bleeding, which can effectively reduce the pain degree of patients with odontogenic jaw cyst, reduce the cyst cavity, reduce the complications and recurrence risk of patients, and has high treatment effectiveness and safety.

参考文献/References:

[1]罗建峰,周昊,魏卓,等.牙源性颌骨囊肿的临床病理特点分析[J].实用医院临床杂志,2021,18(3):104-107.[2]马振,王一名,薛洋,等.黏骨膜-骨瓣术和传统刮治术治疗颌骨囊肿对比研究[J].实用口腔医学杂志,2023,39(1):57-63.[3]侯小峰,李晓妮.颌骨囊肿开窗减压术对邻近牙髓活力的影响分析[J].贵州医药,2023,47(1):74-75.[4]周根祥,王忠华,高明华,等.刮治术和开窗术治疗牙源性颌骨囊肿的临床疗效分析[J].中华全科医学,2022,20(11):1845-1847,1892.[5]孙毓,刘莹.刮治及联合开窗治疗牙源性颌骨囊肿的临床研究[J].内蒙古医科大学学报,2022,44(4):379-382.[6]曾宾华,陈家财,罗艳荣,等.开窗减压术与颌骨囊肿刮治术治疗颌骨囊肿的疗效比较及对术后血清疼痛介质的影响[J].现代生物医学进展,2022,22(8):1498-1501,1523.[7]邱勇棋.牙周源性牙周牙髓联合病变根管治疗后牙周治疗时机选择及效果观察[J].陕西医学杂志,2018,47(3):353-355.[8]贾彦,李新月.根管治疗术对重度牙周-牙髓联合病变患牙牙周再生效果的影响[J].牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志,2018,28(6):350-355.[9]金岚,赵文妍,阮妍,等.开窗减压术治疗颌骨囊肿的临床价值[J].中华全科医学,2021,19(11):1851-1854.[10]陈轩,支强,费亦凡,等.引导骨再生技术联合颌骨囊肿刮治术治疗牙源性颌骨囊肿的临床疗效观察[J].广西医学,2021,43(20):2389-2392,2396.[11]米热阿依克孜·马木提,江阿力·帕孜力别克,赵莉,等.根管治疗对牙周源性牙周牙髓联合病变细菌谱的影响[J].口腔医学研究,2021,37(9):830-834.[12]王磊,王周阳,马春跃,等.2种开窗减压术治疗大型下颌骨牙源性囊肿的效果比较[J].中国口腔颌面外科杂志,2022,20(1):58-62.[13]李淑华,曹发明,许从平,等.开窗减压术与传统刮治术治疗颌骨囊肿的手术效果、生活质量和预后的对比研究[J].现代生物医学进展,2020,20(17):3260-3263.[14]刘一秀,瞿杨,李真华,等.开窗减压术联合二期刮治术及自体牙骨粉植入在治疗颌骨较大囊肿中的应用[J].华西口腔医学杂志,2020,38(4):464-469.[15]陈玥,丁旭,胡建.CBCT分析大型颌骨囊性病变开窗减压术的影响因素及其体积变化规律[J].口腔生物医学,2020,11(2):116-119,124.[16]黄志昌,陈家鑫.单纯根管治疗与一次性根管充填结合即刻手术治疗在前牙根尖周囊肿的治疗效果比较[J].山西医药杂志,2018,47(8):899-900.[17]杜悦,彭笑,韩瑞,等.颌骨囊肿开窗治疗临床特征动态研究[J].上海口腔医学,2021,30(6):658-662.[18]车银富,杜洪亮,陶峰,等.开窗减压术在不同颌骨囊性病变中的疗效观察[J].实用口腔医学杂志,2018,34(5):636-639.[19]章欢,钟奇珉.低温等离子消融术与开窗减压术治疗牙源性肿瘤的疗效对比[J].实用癌症杂志,2018,33(8):1287-1289.[20]李冬仙,李琴琴.大型颌骨囊肿开窗减压术与囊肿刮治术的疗效比较[J].中国药物与临床,2018,18(11):2013-2015.[21]王彬,徐镭,孙秋望月,等.开窗减压术治疗下颌骨牙源性囊肿的临床和影像学研究[J].南京医科大学学报(自然科学版),2018,38(5):653-657.[22]刘海涛,后军.不同手术方法治疗牙源性颌骨囊肿的疗效分析[J].安徽医学,2019,40(7):738-741.

相似文献/References:

[1]王李娜,王恩群.牙源性颌骨囊肿术后自发性骨再生与Bio-Oss移植骨再生效果比较[J].医学信息,2022,35(05):91.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.05.022]
　WANG Li-na,WANG En-qun.Comparison of the Effect of Spontaneous Bone Regeneration and Bio-Oss Graft Bone Regeneration After Odontogenic Jaw Cyst Surgery[J].Journal of Medical Information,2022,35(20):91.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.05.022]

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01