Study on clinical efficacy and patients' satisfaction of MTA apical barrier technique in treatment of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2017.03.014

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy of MTA apical barrier technique and Vitapex apexification in treatment of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation, and to evaluate the satisfaction of patients. METHODS: Seventy-five cases of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation were randomly divided into control group (n=37) and experimental group (n=38). Patients in the control group were treated with Vitapex apexification, while patients in the experimental group were treated with MTA apical barrier technique. The clinical efficacy of the two groups was compared at 3, 6, 9 months and 1 year after treatment, and the average treatment time and average treatment period were compared between 2 groups. The difference of patients' satisfaction with medical environment, health care service, late health care guidance, treatment cost, treatment period and treatment effect were compared between 2 groups. The clinical efficacy, treatment times and period, satisfaction of 2 groups were recorded and analyzed by using SPSS 19.0 software package. RESULTS: At 3 month and 6 month of revisit, the clinical efficacy of the experimental group was better than the control group, but there was no significant difference between 2 groups (P>0.05). At 9 months and 1 year of revisit, the total efficiency of the experimental group was significantly better than the ontrol group (78.38%∶94.74%, P=0.037;75.68%∶97.37%, P=0.006). The treatment time and treatment period of the experimental group were significantly lower than the control group (P<0.05), the values were (3.24±0.39) times, (0.68±0.23) months and (7.78±0.65) times, (8.24±2.95) months. Patients' satisfaction with medical treatment environment, health care service, late health care guidance and treatment period was not significant different between 2 groups (P>0.05). However, patients' satisfaction with treatment cost and treatment effect in the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: MTA apical barrier technique has better clinical efficacy, less treatment time, shorter treatment period and higher satisfaction than Vitapex apexification. It is suitable for clinical application.

Key words: MTA apical barrier technique, Young permanent tooth, Periapical inflammation, Clinical efficacy, Satisfaction

CLC Number:

R781.34.1

ZUO Yuan-lin, LI Chao-hui, LIU Wan-jie. Study on clinical efficacy and patients' satisfaction of MTA apical barrier technique in treatment of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2017, 26(3): 297-301.

References

[1] Flanagan TA. What can cause the pulps of immature, permanent teeth with open apices to become necrotic and what treatment options are available for these teeth[J]. Aust Endod J, 2014, 40(3): 95-100.
[2] 刘彩霞, 张力, 田峰, 等. 不同糊剂根尖诱导成形术治疗年轻恒牙根管感染疗效 [J]. 现代仪器与医疗, 2016, 22(3): 40-42.
[3] 林昌, 区跃坚. 175颗年轻恒牙Vitapex糊剂根尖诱导成形术的疗效观 [J]. 浙江中医药大学学报, 2014, 38(9): 1079-1081.
[4] 张志愿, 俞光岩. 口腔科学 [M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2013: 57-58.
[5] 李俊亮, 葛久禹, 危薇, 等. 5种根管充填糊剂的根管封闭能力的比较 [J]. 口腔医学研究, 2011, 27(8): 716-718.
[6] 王维倩, 田薇, 王海云. 3种根管糊剂根尖封闭性能的评价 [J]. 口腔医学, 2011, 31(6): 343-345.
[7] 王丹丹, 秦珊, 吴再辉, 等. 三氧化矿物聚合物的研究现状 [J]. 口腔医学研究, 2016, 32(7): 771-775.
[8] 邢莉, 蔡秋雁, 黄茜, 等. MTA治疗根尖开放成年人恒牙的疗效观察 [J]. 海南医学, 2015, 26(17): 2618-2620.
[9] Wilkin, Hallam L. Measures of need and outcome for primary health care [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 230-259.
[10] 李文婷, 曾红燕, 赵颖. 牙髓血运重建术治疗感染年轻恒牙的临床疗效观察 [J]. 中国医药导刊, 2014, 16(7): 1105-1106.
[11] 王嘉德, 高学军. 牙体牙髓病学 [M]. 北京: 北京大学医学出版社, 2005: 361-362.
[12] Torabinejad M, Hong CU, Mcdonald F, et al. Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material [J]. J Endod, 1995, 21(7): 349-353.
[13] 赵朋朋, 王洋, 刘志顺, 等. MTA根尖屏障15例临床效果评价 [J]. 武警后勤学院学报(医学版),2013, 22(8): 725-727.
[14] 丁瑞宇, 马琦, 尹兴喆, 等. MTA治疗恒牙根尖开敞慢性根尖周炎疗效观察 [J]. 牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志, 2014, 24(1): 42-44.