摘要： 目的：比较切线法阻力分析后推拔除阻生牙的方法与传统阻力分析拔除方法的临床疗效。方法：将300例病例随机分为2组，甲组以传统阻力分析后分牙拔除方法，乙组按切线法阻力分析后完整拔除阻生牙，对比2组手术时间、术中及术后并发症等情交，并进行统计分析。结果：甲乙组所用时间分别为（22.39±13.13） min和（19.11±13.14） min，乙组（切线法）的拔牙时间短于甲组传统法（P<0.05）。术中、术后并发症除干槽症有统计学意义外，其他并发症差异无统计学意义。结论：两种方法均能顺利地完成下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术，术后并发症较低。乙组（切线法）有拔牙时间短，干槽症发生率低的优势，并能完整拔除阻生牙，可为阻生牙移植提供前提条件。故切线法是下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术一种较好的阻力分析及拔除的方法。

关键词: 下颌第三磨牙, 牙拔除术, 切线阻力分析, 后退法, 完整拔出

Abstract: objetctive: Comparison of the clinical curative effect of tangential resistance analysis step-back removal impact teeth method and traditional resistance analysis removal impact teeth method. Methods： 300 cases were randomly divided into two groups, the group A used traditional resistance analysis of tooth extraction method, the group B used tangential resistance analysis step-back with completely removal of impacted teeth. The operative time, intra-operative and postoperative complications of 2 groups were statistical analysis. Results： The used time of group A was (22.39±13.13) min, while B group extraction time is (19.11±13.14) min and shorter than group A(P<0.05). In addition to dry socket, the intra-operative and postoperative complications was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Two methods all can successfully complete mandibular third molar extraction surgery, with a few postoperative complications. Extraction time of group B, was shorter, with a low incidence of dry socket, and removal of impacted teeth in the overall.

Key words: mandibular third molar, teeth extraction, tangential resistance analysis, step-back technique, complete extraction

中图分类号: 

•  

• R782.11