Abstract: Objective:  To evaluate the clinical value of minimally invasive extraction method in the process for low impact wisdom teeth extraction.  Method: 134 cases were retrospectively reviewed. In experiment group (n=69), minimally invasive method were used for teeth extractions. In control group(n=65), hammer chisel splitting method were used for teeth extractions. The duration of tooth extraction, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications between the two groups were compared. Results: Duration of extraction in mini invasive group was(16.28±1.01) min while that of chisel group was(32.25 ±1.09) min(P＜0.01). Intraoperative complications such as adjacent tooth mobility, root fracture, lingual bone plate fracture also showed significant difference between two groups (P<0.05), and no difference on gingival avulsion (P>0.05). Postoperative complications such as dry socket, limited mouth opening, postoperative pain demonstrated significant difference between the two groups (P<0.01), the former is obviously lower than the latter. Conclusion: Minimally invasive tooth extraction method demonstrated obvious advantages in the extraction of low impact wisdom teeth.

Key words: mandibular impacted wisdom teeth low, extraction, minimally invasive tooth extraction method, hammer chisel split crown method

摘要： 目的：在下颌低位阻生智齿拔除中，比较微创拔牙法与锤凿劈冠法的效果。方法：研究对象为我院收治的134例下颌低位阻生智齿患者，将其分为研究组和对照组，分别为69、65例。研究组患者采用微创拔牙法，而对照组患者采用锤凿劈冠法。比较2组患者的以下指标：术中并发症、拔牙时间、术后并发症。结果：研究组和对照组的拔牙时间分别为(16.28±1.01)、(32.25±1.09) min，2组相比，P＜0.01，前者明显比后者短（t=124.72）。研究组和对照组患者的邻牙松动、术中根折、舌侧骨板骨折等术中并发症的发生率比较，P＜0.05，前者明显低于后者；而2组患者的牙龈撕裂术中并发症的发生率比较，P＞0.05，差异无统计学意义。研究组和对照组患者的干槽症、张口受限、术后疼痛等术后并发症的发生率比较，P＜0.01，前者明显低于后者。结论：对于下颌低位阻生智齿的拔除，采用微创拔牙法减轻了患者的恐惧和不适感，创伤小，拔牙时间缩短，术中及术后并发症少，拔牙创口愈合快，非常值得在临床上推广和应用。

关键词: 下颌低位阻生智齿；  , 牙拔除术；  , 微创拔牙法；  , 锤凿劈冠法

CLC Number: 

• R782.11