目的 比较涡轮机分牙法与去骨法对下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术后反应的差异,为这类患牙的拔除方式选择提供参考。方法 选择门诊患者68位,共82颗患牙,随机分为两组,一组采用分牙法,另一组采用去骨法,每组41颗患牙。分牙法组使用涡轮机分牙法拔除患牙;去骨法组使用涡轮机去骨法拔除患牙。比较两组手术时间、术后疼痛、面部肿胀及张口受限程度的情况。结果 分牙法组手术时间为(23.5±6.4)min, 而去骨法组手术时间为(16.5±3.3)min,两组差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);分牙法组术后疼痛及术后肿胀方面症状均轻于去骨法组,差别有统计学意义(P＜0.01);术后张口受限方面分牙法组和去骨法组比较,无统计学差别。结论 两种方法各有利弊,涡轮机分牙法可明显减轻术后疼痛和肿胀症状,但手术时间较长。

Objective To analyze the difference between turbine tooth separation method and turbine bone abrasion method for removal of mesioangular impacted mandibular third molar, providing reference for clinical preoperative design. Methods A total of 82 teeth from 68 outpatients were randomly divided into two groups, one group was treated by tooth separation method, the other group by bone abrasion method 41 teeth in each group. Tooth separation method group underwent turbine tooth separation; and the other group underwent turbine bone abrasion. Operation time, postoperative pain, swelling in the face and limitation of mouth opening degree were compared between the two groups. Results Compared with bone abrasion group (16.5±3.3) min, the operation time in tooth separation group(23.5±6.4)min was longer significantly (P<0.01). The postoperative pain in tooth separation group was lighter than in bone abrasion group, with significant difference (P<0.01). The swelling after operation in tooth separation group was lighter than in bone abrasion group, with significant difference (P<0.01). For limitation of mouth opening degree, both groups had no significant difference. Conclusions Using the turbine tooth separation method for extraction of impacted mandibular third molar can significantly reduce postoperative pain and swelling, but the operation time is longer than in the turbine bone abrasion method.