口腔医学 ›› 2025, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (5): 342-346.doi: 10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2025.05.004

• 基础与临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

三种手术入路拔除上颌前牙中线区高位埋伏多生牙临床对照研究

程旭, 郑先雨, 丁丁, 黄姗姗, 吴晓婷, 张亨国()   

  1. 安徽医科大学口腔医学院,安徽医科大学附属口腔医院,安徽省口腔疾病研究重点实验室,安徽合肥(230032)
  • 收稿日期:2024-10-23 出版日期:2025-05-28 发布日期:2025-05-21
  • 通讯作者: 张亨国 E-mail:zhanghengguo@ahmu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(82201026);安徽省自然科学基金青年基金(2108085QH335);安徽省卫生健康委科研项目(一般项目)(AHWJ2021b146)

A clinical comparative study on three surgical approaches for the removal of impacted supernumerary teeth in the midline area of the anterior maxilla

CHENG Xu, ZHENG Xianyu, DING Ding, HUANG Shanshan, WU Xiaoting, ZHANG Hengguo()   

  1. College & Hospital of Stomatology, Anhui Medical University, Key Lab. of Oral Diseases Research of Anhui Province, Hefei 230032, China
  • Received:2024-10-23 Online:2025-05-28 Published:2025-05-21

摘要:

目的 本研究旨在评估不同手术入路在拔除上颌前牙区高位中线区埋伏多生牙中的疗效和安全性。我们比较了三种手术入路:经唇侧、腭侧以及上唇系带旁纵形入路。方法 研究纳入了2024年1月至9月在安徽医科大学附属口腔医院口腔颌面外科接受治疗的102例患者,通过随机数字表法将患者分为三组:唇侧入路组32例、腭侧入路组34例、上唇系带旁纵形入路组36例。我们记录并比较了各组的手术时间、去骨量、术后面中部肿胀、疼痛程度以及患者满意度。结果 唇侧入路组和上唇系带旁纵形入路组的手术时间分别为(20.50±3.02)min和(21.66±2.31)min,均短于腭侧入路组的(29.19±3.40)min。腭侧入路组在术后面部肿胀和疼痛评分上显著低于其他两组(P<0.05),且在OHIP-14评分中表现最佳,表明患者满意度最高。然而,腭侧入路组的去骨量最大,为(91.19±9.86)mm3结论 综合考虑,尽管腭侧入路在术后疼痛和肿胀控制以及患者满意度方面表现优异,但其手术时间长且去骨量较大。而上唇系带旁纵形入路和唇侧入路在各方面表现相近,未发现显著差异。因此,在拔除上颌前牙区高位中部埋伏牙时,选择手术入路需兼顾安全性、微创性以及患者满意度。

关键词: 多生牙, 手术入路, 上唇系带, 手术时间, 锥形束CT, 视觉模拟评分法, 微创, 患者满意度

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different surgical approaches for extracting high-positioned supernumerary teeth in the maxillary anterior midline region. Three surgical methods, the labial approach, the palatal approach, and a longitudinal incision beside the upper lip frenum were compared. Methods A total of 102 patients were recruited from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Anhui Medical University between January and September 2024. They were randomly assigned via a random-digit table to three groups: the labial approach group (n=32), the palatal approach group (n=34), and the longitudinal incision beside the upper lip frenum group (n=36). Operation time, bone removal volume, postoperative midfacial swelling, degree of pain, and patient satisfaction across the three groups were recorded and compared. Results The average operation time in the labial approach group ((20.50±3.02) min) and the longitudinal incision group ((21.66±2.31) min) were both significantly shorter than that in the palatal approach group ((29.19±3.40) min). In contrast, the palatal approach group demonstrated markedly lower postoperative swelling and pain scores (P< 0.05), along with the highest patient satisfaction, as reflected in the OHIP-14 scale. However, the palatal approach required the greatest bone removal volume, measuring (91.19 ± 9.86)mm3. Conclusion Despite the palatal approach yielding superior outcomes in terms of postoperative pain control, swelling reduction, and patient satisfaction, it necessitated longer operation time and involved greater bone removal. Meanwhile, the labial approach and the longitudinal incision beside the upper lip frenum were comparable in all measured parameters, showing no statistically significant differences. Therefore, when extracting high midline impacted teeth in the maxillary anterior region, the choice of surgical approach should balance safety, minimal invasiveness, and patient satisfaction.

Key words: supernumerary teeth, surgical approach, upper labial frenum, operation time, cone beam CT, visual analogue scale, minimally invasive, patient satisfaction

中图分类号: