下颌骨埋伏阻生第三磨牙拔除技巧与方法研究新进展
Mandibular Impacted Third Molar Extraction Techniques and New Progress in Method Research
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2024.1441045, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 21  浏览: 47 
作者: 地力胡马尔·库尔班, 古 丽, 王 玲*:新疆医科大学第一附属医院(附属口腔医院)口腔外科门诊,新疆 乌鲁木齐
关键词: 下颌骨埋伏第三磨牙邻牙翻瓣开窗缝合Mandible Ambush the Third Molar Adjacent Teeth Flip Flap Open the Window Suture
摘要: 下颌骨埋伏第三磨牙是指完全埋伏于骨组织中且无法正常萌出的下颌第三磨牙,下颌骨埋伏第三磨牙通常造成远中深牙周袋、感染、远中骨丧失、邻牙牙根外吸收、骨髓炎和囊肿等一系列并发症的发生。因此,有专家建议尽早拔除这类下颌第三磨牙。目前,拔除下颌骨埋伏第三磨牙手术难度高,风险大,并发症发生率高,术后骨愈合效果欠佳,甚者加重一些并发症的程度。有学者不断研究更微创化的拔除方式,更好的引导骨组织的愈合,提出了改良的翻瓣方式、开窗方式、取骨和分牙方式等。本文以拔除下颌骨埋伏第三磨牙为例,对一些改良的拔牙方法进行了总结并撰写了一篇综述,为临床工作提供参考依据。
Abstract: Mandibular impacted third molars refer to the mandibular third molars that are completely embedded in bone tissue and cannot erupt normally. Mandibular impacted third molars usually cause a series of complications such as distal deep periodontal pocket, infection, distal bone loss, extraradicular absorption of adjacent teeth, osteomyelitis and cyst. Therefore, some experts suggest that such mandibular third molars should be removed as soon as possible. At present, the extraction of mandibular impacted third molars is difficult, risky, and has a high incidence of complications. The postoperative bone healing effect is not good, and even aggravates the degree of some complications. Some scholars continue to study more minimally invasive extraction methods to better guide the healing of bone tissue, and put forward improved flap methods, windowing methods, bone removal and tooth separation methods. Taking the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars as an example, this paper summarizes a series of improved extraction methods and writes a review to provide reference for clinical work.
文章引用:地力胡马尔·库尔班, 古丽, 王玲. 下颌骨埋伏阻生第三磨牙拔除技巧与方法研究新进展[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(4): 463-470. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2024.1441045

1. 引言

下颌阻生第三磨牙的拔除术是牙槽外科学最为常见的手术。下颌骨埋伏第三磨牙(Impacted Lower Third Molars, ILTM)拔除术通常需要大范围的翻瓣,磨除骨阻力,并且与神经血管关系较为复杂,容易导致疼痛、肿胀、张口受限、感染、神经损伤、远中深牙周袋(probing pocket depth, PD)和远中骨缺失等并发症 [1] [2] 。有65% [3] 下颌第三磨牙紧贴于邻牙(mandibular second molar, M2M),传统拔牙方法磨除M2M远中颊侧牙槽骨,术后M2M远中垂直向骨量缺失,形成深PD,长久不愈,反复发作,难以恢复 [4] [5] [6] [7] 。随着微创化拔牙技术的发展,学者不断探索改良翻瓣方式、开窗方式、分牙方式、缝合方式,更新微创化拔牙器械等 [8] 。该综述总结了几种改良拔牙方式,为临床工作提供参考依据。

2. 手术方法

2.1. 翻瓣方式的改良

2.1.1. 信封瓣、三角瓣、Szmyd皮瓣

ILTM拔除术第一步为翻黏膜瓣将激活破骨细胞 [9] 。有学者研究皮瓣设计对牙周愈合有一定的影响,Korkmaz [10] 比较了使用三角瓣(3-cornered laterally rotated flap, LRF)和信封瓣(Envelope flap, EF)拔除ILTM时对牙周愈合的影响,术后3个月使用LRF的PD明显小于EF,短期内LRF引起的炎症反应较EF明显。Muhtada Ahmad [11] 使用EF和Szmyd皮瓣(Szmyd flap, SF)两种皮瓣拔除ILTM,经过6个月的观察发现EF皮瓣造成的骨缺失比起Szmyd皮瓣更为明显。

2.1.2. 改良皮瓣

改良皮瓣对LRF、SF和EF的基础上下移1~2 mm,完整地保留了M2M牙龈组织的连续性,这一改良设计的关键之处主要在于保留了M2M周围的牙周韧带的连续性以及颊侧的附着龈完整性,可以有效地减少可能出现的牙周并发症的风险 [11] 。Tuğrul Kirtiloğlu [12] 研究改良SF和LRF两种皮瓣,Alqahtani研究EF和改良LRF,Suarez-Cunqueiro [14] 研究改良LRF和LRF,在阻生牙拔除术后相邻M2M远中牙周组织的恢复情况,在标准皮瓣中,28.3%的患者PD为5 mm,51.7%的患者PD为4 mm,然而,在采用改良皮瓣组中,仅有6.7%的患者PD为5 mm,36.7%的患者PD为4 mm,明显减少了M2M远中牙周病变的发生 [13] 。Kirtiloğlu [12] 研究发现标准皮瓣和改良皮瓣术前和术后的斑块指数和牙龈指数也相似,这表明两种切口设计在早期差异不是由于斑块堆积引起的,可能与M2M周围牙龈边缘完整保存和未进行沟内切口有关。

2.1.3. 舌侧皮瓣

2002年由Berwick首先提出了改良设计的舌侧基底瓣,舌侧皮瓣自第二磨牙远中面龈沟内切开向前切至第二磨远颊轴角处斜向下,不应超过前庭沟底,继续延下颌升前缘拐向后向上做平滑弯曲的切口,切至能暴露阻生牙的远中面高度,瓣尖角度约60度,长宽比不超过3:1。翻起舌侧瓣后将其用4~0缝线悬吊至下颌皱襞上1/3处,以充分暴露术区,术后舌侧基底三角瓣于角形尖端对位缝合一针进行固定,近中垂直切口和前庭沟切口各自缝合两针 [15] 。舌侧基底瓣对于阻生牙拔除术术后反应的影响效果存在争议,不同研宄受样本量和手术方法差异性限制,结果并不一致。Menziletoglu,Yolcu [16] [17] 等学者研究发现舌侧基底瓣术后第一周肿胀反应相对于颊侧基底瓣较明显,但是舌侧基底瓣伤口初期封闭性,稳定性较好,可以更快地促进黏膜愈合和骨再生,缩短治疗时间,减少术后痛苦,也有效降低了骨髓炎和术后感染的风险。

2.2. 开窗方式的改良

颊侧开窗术——掀盖法,最早,Motamedi [18] 设计了一种通过侧向环状开窗的手术方法。Scolozzi提出了颊侧皮质切开术(Buccal Corticotomy, BC) [13] 的方法,该方法在保护周围软组织的前提下,对颊侧皮质骨板进行块状切削,拔除ILTM后颊侧皮质骨板进行完整复位,封闭拔牙窝,支撑软组织,并隔离上皮细胞,可以引导周围骨组织的再生,从而有效地减少相邻M2M牙周组织的损伤。周扬一帆 [19] 、杨慧娜 [20] 等学者研究BC拔除ILTM,发现BC能够保留M2M远中牙槽骨的完整性,提供M2M远中软组织提供足够支撑,从而有利于术后创口愈合,减少骨缺损引起的术后并发症,降低损伤下牙槽神经的概率,但是由于颊侧开窗过程中,术中翻瓣范围较大,术后肿胀较明显 [20] 。

2.3. 分牙(脱位)方式的改良

2.3.1. “出根法”拔除术

ILTM由于位置深,通常埋在M2M颈部下方牙槽骨里,常规分牙冠时,邻牙阻力、骨阻力和根部阻力同时存在,会导致冠部不易脱位、手术时间长、易损伤M2M等问题 [8] 。因此考虑先解除ILTM远中的骨阻力和根部阻力,名为“出根法”拔除术 [8] 。有学者 [21] [22] 比较了“出根法”和常规拔牙方法,由于牙根脱位法保留了M2M颊侧部分骨壁,有利于牙槽窝的骨愈合和骨再生,也有助于龈的再附着,有效地维持了M2M远中牙周健康,减少了形成深牙周袋等并发症。ILTM与下牙槽神经管的关系较为复杂,开窗去骨部位移到ILTM根颈部,这样能减少牙根脱位时的骨阻力,使牙根脱位较为轻松,从而减少牙根脱位时所造成的反复机械刺激对下牙槽神经管的损伤。ILTM牙冠大且深埋伏于M2M远中及颊侧紧贴于远中牙根,甚者无牙槽骨隔分,传统拔牙方法当牙冠脱位时无法避免对M2M远中牙根的损伤 [23] [24] 。“出根法”牙根先行脱位后,牙冠向空虚的远中牙槽窝脱位,从而减少了牙冠脱位时对M2M远中牙周组织的进一步损伤,并部分牙根有外吸收的M2M来说比较友好。

2.3.2. 截冠术拔除ILTM

ILTM与下牙槽神经管关系密切,易导致下牙槽神经损伤( inferior alveolar nerve injuries, IANI) [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] 。截冠术是针对压迫下牙槽神经管的下颌第三磨牙的一种拔除方式,首先截除下颌第三磨牙牙冠,牙根暂先不拔除,等待牙根上移或通过正畸牵引、微种植支抗钉牵引等方法使牙根远离神经后再进行二次手术拔除剩余牙根的新型拔牙技术 [30] [31] [32] 。有相关研究说明,通过采用截冠术可以降低下牙槽神经损伤的风险 [33] [34] [35] [36] 。Carbonarea等 [37] 等学者发现存在牙根移动速度缓慢,未能达到预期效果等问题,除此之外,术后伴有疼痛、肿胀、感染、颌骨骨髓炎等一些不足之处。因此,选择该技术时,需要综合考虑其优势和潜在的风险。

2.4. 缝合方式

缝合是ILTM拔除术最后一步,可以促进术后创面愈合 [38] 。不同的缝合方式对牙周组织有不同的影响 [39] 。间断缝合是外科医生的首选,但相关研究发现锚定缝合和“8”字缝合可以维持牙周组织的健康,预防ILTM拔除术后的牙周问题。具体来说,锚定缝合和“8”字缝合可以形成屏障阻止食物嵌入,保护该区域的牙周组织再生和修复。综上所述,锚定缝合和“8”字缝合可能比间断缝合更适合ILTM拔除术,能够更好地促进牙周组织的愈合和预防牙周问题 [40] [41] 。

3. 手术器械的改良

3.1. 超声骨刀与高速涡轮机联合应用

超声骨刀能够精确切削硬组织,避免对软组织的损伤,减少术后炎症、疼痛等不良反应 [42] ,且不影响骨组织的愈合 [43] 。改良后的45度仰角冲击式气动切割手机 [44] ,其气体从头部向四周分散,不喷射在术区,大大减少了皮下气肿发生的几率,手机头部的角度配合外科专用加长裂钻使之较易深入口腔内部操作。但是对骨组织的保存效果较差,术后拔牙创骨组织的愈合较差。高速涡轮机能快速分冠,达到去除阻力的目的。但其旋转时发热可能导致骨灼伤而坏死,造成M2M远中骨缺损 [45] [46] 。目前临床中将高速涡轮机与超声骨刀联合使用拔除阻生第三磨牙,以减少手术时间、降低术后反应、提升拔牙窝完整性 [47] 。

霍文静等 [48] 采用高速涡轮机联合微创拔牙刀联合拔除下颌阻生牙,可以缩短手术时间,减少失血量,减少术后并发症,安全性较高。吴纪楠 [49] 、吴昌敬 [50] 、张卓 [51] 等研究采用反角高速涡轮机结合超声骨刀拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙,通过利用超声骨刀骨损伤小,反角高速涡轮机分牙快的特点,既可避免反角高速涡轮机对周围神经血管等软组织损伤,也可减少因超声骨刀切割牙体组织过慢引起张口时间过长而造成患者关节不适等问题,两者优势互补。相比于传统的劈冠法,以高速涡轮机和超声骨刀为代表的微创拔牙法已广泛应用于临床。

3.2. 无痛麻醉仪

社会不断发展,人们对口腔舒适化治疗的要求也日益提高。传统注射技术不仅会因为针刺机体组织而产生穿刺疼痛,注射流速产生的压力疼痛也是一个重要原因。因此,计算机控制局部麻醉药传输系统(computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system, C-CLADS)应运而生。1997年,一种全新的麻醉药物给药方法——计算机控制局部麻醉给药系统(C-CLADS)面世。1998年,动态压力传感技术从根本上改变了C-CLAD [52] 。紧接着各国研发类似的麻醉系统。2007年Milestone公司研发了第二代C-CLAD治疗仪STA系统(Single Tooth Anesthesia) [53] (又名:无痛麻醉仪),该系统在临床应用广泛,并可用于所有传统的口内注射技术。

STA (single tooth anesthesia, STA)单颗牙齿麻醉,即计算机控制的局部麻醉传输系统(C-CLADs),主要由计算机控制主机、带管脚踏、手柄以及手柄配套针头组成,其中自动精确控制推进杆是核心部件。STA设有多种工作模式和注射速度,包括STA、Normal和Turbo模式,分别适用于骨膜下、黏膜下和软组织内的麻醉。STA无痛麻醉仪可以在几乎所有的牙科治疗领域应用。多数研究报道,接受无痛局麻注射仪的患者VAS得分更低,疼痛减少,很好地解决了注射疼痛的问题。刘道华等 [54] 发现在牙科焦虑症心血管疾病患者中应用STA无痛麻醉仪后,实验组心率显著低于传统注射组,其效果显著,减轻患者恐惧感和疼痛感,降低心血管疾病发生,使拔牙过程顺利完成。

3.3. 手术刀

传统的手术刀和电刀在使用过程中常常会导致出血量较大,同时可能会导致热损伤等副作用。但是,随着对激光技术的深入研究,人们发现以掺铒钇铝石榴石(Er:YAG)激光和掺钕钇铝石榴石(Nd:YAG)激光为主的硬激光在牙龈组织切开方面具有显著优势。具体而言,激光具有抗菌、消炎和微创的特点,并且能够有效止血。其中,Er:YAG激光的波长为2940 nm,是一种组织表面吸收性激光,对组织的穿透力相对较弱。因此,在牙龈组织切割后形成的创面比较规则,热损伤较小,凝固层也较薄(仅为47.9 ± 36.44 um)。而Nd:YAG激光的波长为1064 nm,对血红蛋白有较高的吸收能力,在牙龈组织切割过程中具有较强的止血性能。此外,它还可以有效扩大手术区域的视野,方便手术操作。与此同时,由于Nd:YAG激光对牙周致病菌有较强的杀菌作用,因此在牙龈组织切割过程中,能够有效地减少术中和术后切口感染的风险 [55] 。

综上所述,随着微创拔牙技术的日益发展,学者们打破传统拔牙技术,不断更新及研发新型拔牙技巧、手术入路、切口方式、翻瓣方式、开窗部位及大小、缝合方式、器械的选择等,能够患者充分收益。奔向更微创,更快,更轻的术后反应及更少的发生术后并发症的方向而努力。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Camps-Font, O., Caro-Bonfill, C., Sánchez-Garcés, M.À. and Gay-Escoda, C. (2018) Periodontal Regenerative Therapy for Preventing Bone Defects Distal to Mandibular Second Molars after Surgical Removal of Impacted Third Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 76, 2482-2514.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.07.025
[2] Candotto, V., Oberti, L., Gabrione, F., Scarano, A., Rossi, D. and Romano, M. (2019) Complication in Third Molar Extractions. Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents, 33, 169-172.
[3] Kugelberg, C. (1990) Impacted Lower Third Molars and Periodontal Health. An Epidemiological, Methodological, Retrospective and Prospective Clinical Study. Swedish Dental Journal, 68, 1-52.
[4] Montero, J. and Mazzaglia, G. (2011) Effect of Removing an Impacted Mandibular Third Molar on the Periodontal Status of the Mandibular Second Molar. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 69, 2691-2697.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.06.205
[5] Passarelli, P., Lajolo, C., Pasquantonio, G., et al. (2019) Influence of Mandibular Third Molar Surgical Extraction on the Periodontal Status of Adjacent Second Molars. Journal of Periodontology, 90, 847-855.
https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.18-0415
[6] 谷达明, 文瑜, 谷益豪. 2749颗阻生第三磨牙病变回顾性分析[J]. 现代医药卫生, 2022, 38(7): 1209-1212.
[7] Leung, W.K., Corbet, E.F., Kan, K.W., et al. (2005) A Regimen of Systematic Periodontal Care after Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars Manages Periodontal Pockets Associated with the Mandibular Second Molars. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 32, 725-731.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00773.x
[8] 李元, 张武阳, 邓天阁, 等. 牙拔除术新技巧[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2021, 14(6): 650-654.
https://doi.org/10.19538/J.Kq.2021.06.003
[9] Kugelberg, C.F. (1990) Periodontal Healing Two and Four Years after Impacted Lower Third Molar Surgery. A Comparative Retrospective Study. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 19, 341-345.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80077-3
[10] Korkmaz, Y., Mollaoglu, N. and Ozmeriç, N. (2015) Does Laterally Rotated Flap Design Influence the Short-Term Periodontal Status of Second Molars and Postoperative Discomfort after Partially Impacted Third Molar Surgery? Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 73, 1031-1041.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2015.01.005
[11] Ahmad, M., Khan, Z., Khan, T., et al. (2021) Influence of Surgical Flap Design (Envelope and Szmyd) for Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars on Clinical Periodontal Parameters: A Clinical Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, Article No. 4465.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094465
[12] Kirtiloğlu, T., Bulut, E., Sümer, M. and Cengiz, I. (2007) Comparison of 2 Flap Designs in the Periodontal Healing of Second Molars after Fully Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Extractions. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 65, 2206-2210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2006.11.029
[13] Scolozzi, P. (2022) Buccal Corticotomy Using Piezosurgery as a Surgical Approach for Removal of Deeply Impacted Mandibular Teeth: An Alternative Procedure to Avoid Pitfalls Associated with the Conventional Technique. Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 123, 142-146.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2021.04.012
[14] Suarez-Cunqueiro, M.M., Gutwald, R., Reichman, J., Otero-Cepeda, X.L. and Schmelzeisen, R. (2003) Marginal Flap versus Paramarginal Flap in Impacted Third Molar Surgery: A Prospective Study. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, 95, 403-408.
https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2003.84
[15] Karaca, I., Simşek, S., Uğar, D. and Bozkaya, S. (2007) Review of Flap Design Influence on the Health of the Periodontium after Mandibular Third Molar Surgery. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, 104, 18-23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.11.049
[16] Menziletoglu, D., Guler, A.Y., Basturk, F., Isik, B.K. and Erdur, E.A. (2020) Comparison of Two Different Flap Designs for Bilateral Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery. Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 121, 368-372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2019.08.006
[17] Yolcu, Ü. and Acar, A.H. (2015) Comparison of a New Flap Design with the Routinely Used Triangular Flap Design in Third Molar Surgery. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 44, 1390-1397.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.007
[18] Motamedi, M.H. (1999) Preventing Periodontal Pocket Formation after Removal of an Impacted Mandibular Third Molar. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 130, 1482-1484.
https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0060
[19] 周杨一帆, 张雪明, 侯光宇, 等. 超声骨刀颊侧开窗法拔除下颌低位骨埋伏第三磨牙[J]. 口腔颌面外科杂志, 2019, 29(1): 30-33.
[20] 杨慧娜, 伍靖, 杜新雅, 李晓宇. 颊侧开窗法拔除下颌低位埋伏阻生智齿的临床分析[J]. 口腔颌面外科杂志, 2023, 33(3): 173-177.
[21] 王兵, 孙眷, 赵吉宏. 牙根先脱位法拔除下颌低位水平阻生第三磨牙的微创化意义[J]. 中国口腔医学继续教育杂志, 2021, 24(6): 359-366.
[22] 王兵, 孙睿, 赵吉宏. 致邻牙牙根吸收下颌水平埋伏阻生第三磨牙微创拔除术1例[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(4): 383-386.
[23] Nunn, M., Fish, M., Garcia, R., et al. (2013) Retained Asymptomatic Third Molars and Risk for Second Molar Pathology. Journal of Dental Research, 92, 1095-1099.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513509281
[24] Petsos, H., Korte, J., Eickholz, P., et al. (2016) Surgical Removal of Third Molars and Periodontal Tissues of Adjacent Second Molars. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 43, 453-460.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12527
[25] Hasegawa, T., Ri, S., Shigeta, T., Akashi, M., Imai, Y., Kakei, Y., Shibuya, Y. and Komori, T. (2013) Risk Factors Associated with Inferior Alveolar Nerve Injury after Extraction of the Mandibular Third Molar—A Comparative Study of Preoperative Images by Panoramic Radiography and Computed Tomography. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 42, 843-851.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.01.023
[26] Umar, G., Obisesan, O., Bryant, C. and Rood, J.P. (2013) Elimination of Permanent Injuries to the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Following Surgical Intervention of the “High Risk” Third Molar. The British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 51, 353-357.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2012.08.006
[27] Patel, V., Sproata, C., Kwok, J., et al. (2014) Histological Evaluation of Mandibular Third Molar Roots Retrieved after Coronectomy. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 52, 415-419.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.02.016
[28] Sivolella, S., Berengo, M., Bressan, E., et al. (2011) Osteotomy for Lower Third Molar Germectomy: Randomized Prospective Crossover Clinical Study Comparing Piezosurgery and Conventional Rotatory Osteotomy. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 69, 15-23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.12.036
[29] 张宗敏, 胡开进, 周宏志. 下牙槽神经损伤的原因及防治[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2014, 7(9): 523-527.
[30] Cortes, A.R., No-Cortes, J., Cavalcanti, M.G., et al. (2014) An Alternative Approach to Extruding a Vertically Impacted Lower Third Molar Using an Orthodontic Miniscrew: A Case Report with Cone-Beam CT Follow-Up. Imaging Science in Dentistry, 44, 171-175.
https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2014.44.2.171
[31] 汪湧, 徐颖, 杨驰, 等. 微创拔除邻近下牙槽神经的第三磨牙方法分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2018, 16(1): 48-51.
[32] Wang, Y., He, D.M., Yang, C., et al. (2012) An Easy Way to Apply Orthodontic Extraction for Impacted Lower Third Molar Compressing to the Inferior Alveolar Nerve. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 40, 234-237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2011.05.001
[33] Matzen, L.H., Villefrance, J.S., et al. (2020) Cone Beam CT and Treatment Decision of Mandibular Third Molars: Removal vs Coronectomy—A 3-Year Audit. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 49, Article ID: 20190250.
https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190250
[34] 谢瑜, 周懿. 截冠术: 下颌第三磨牙保守拔除术[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志, 2020, 47(1): 17-21.
[35] Pitros, P., Jackson, I. and O’Connor, N. (2019) Coronectomy: A Retrospective Outcome Study. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 23, 453-458.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-019-00794-x
[36] Kang, F.W., Xue, Z.X. and Zhou, X.K. (2019) Coronectomy: A Useful Approach Inminimizing Nerve Injury Compared with Traditional Extraction of Deeply Impacted Mandibular Third Molars. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 77, 2221.E1-2221.E14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.06.186
[37] Dalle Carbonare, M., Zavattini, A., Duncan, M., Williams, M. and Moody, A. (2017) Injury to the Inferior Alveolar and Lingual Nerves in Successful and Failed Coronectomies: Systematic Review. The British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 55, 892-898.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.09.006
[38] Osunde, O.D., Adebola, R.A. and Saheeb, B.D. (2012) A Comparative Study of the Effect of Suture-Less and Multiple Suture Techniques on Inflammatory Complications Following Third Molar Surgery. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 41, 1275-1279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2012.04.009
[39] Burkhardt, R. and Lang, N.P. (2015) Influence of Suturing on Wound Healing. Periodontology 2000, 68, 270-281.
https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12078
[40] Zhang, Y., Chen, X., Zhou, Z., Hao, Y., Li, H., Cheng, Y., Ren, X. and Wang, X. (2021) Effects of Impacted Lower Third Molar Extraction on Periodontal Tissue of the Adjacent Second Molar. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, 17, 235-247.
https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S298147
[41] Jeong, J.S. and Chang, M. (2015) Food Impaction and Periodontal/Peri-Implant Tissue Conditions in Relation to the Embrasure Dimensions Between Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Adjacent Teeth: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Periodontology, 86, 1314-1320.
https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2015.150322
[42] Zizzari, V.L., Berardi, D., Congedi, F., et al. (2015) Morphological Aspect and INOS and Bax Expression Modification in Bone Tissue around Dental Implants Positioned Using Piezoelectric Bone Surgery versus Conventional Drill Technique. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 26, 741-744.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001540
[43] Rashad, A., Sadr-Eshkevari, P., Heiland, M., et al. (2015) Intraosseous Heat Generation during Sonic, Ultrasonic and Conventional Osteotomy. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 43, 1072-1077.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.05.018
[44] 邱蔚六. 口腔颌面外科学[M]. 第6版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2008: 75-84.
[45] 刘荫, 刘唯, 李红玖, 杨安, 程由勇. 反角高速涡轮机拔除低位下颌阻生齿的效果观察[J]. 口腔颌面外科杂志, 2015, 25(2): 134-136.
[46] Stella, P.E.M., Falci, S.G.M., Oliveira De Medeiros, L.E., et al. (2017) Impact of Mandibular Third Molar Extraction in the Second Molar Periodontal Status: A Prospective Study. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology, 21, 285-290.
[47] 林晓铭. 微创拔牙刀结合高速涡轮牙钻拔牙法在下颌近中阻生智齿拔除中的应用效果[J]. 医疗装备, 2022, 35(7): 118-120.
[48] 霍文静. 高速涡轮机头联合微创拔牙刀在下颌阻生牙拔除术中的效果[J]. 实用中西医结合临床, 2020, 20(4): 153-154.
[49] 吴纪楠, 王忠东, 胡文, 等. 超声骨刀结合涡轮钻法在复杂下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除中的应用[J]. 广东牙病防治, 2013, 21(6): 314-317.
[50] 吴昌敬, 邵军, 蔡剑林, 等. 超声骨刀联合高速涡轮机拔除下颌埋伏第三磨牙的临床应用[J]. 口腔颌面外科杂志, 2016, 26(1): 38-41.
[51] 张卓, 张斌. 超声骨刀与高速涡轮钻联合应用拔除下颌阻生智齿的效果观察[J]. 山东医药, 2012, 52(46): 70-71.
[52] Al-Obaida, M.I., Haider, M., Hashim, R., et al. (2019) Comparison of Perceived Pain and Patients’ Satisfaction with Traditional Local Anesthesia and Single Tooth Anesthesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. World Journal of Clinical Cases, 7, 2986-2994.
https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v7.i19.2986
[53] 潘剑, 杨腾宇, 苏乃川, 等. 口腔局部麻醉新进展[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2012, 5(7): 387-390.
[54] Giannetti, L., Forabosco, E., Spinas, E., Re, D. and Murri Dello Diago, A. (2018) Single Tooth Anaesthesia: A New Approach to the Paediatric Patient. A Clinical Experimental Study. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, 19, 40-43.
[55] Civak, T., Ustun, T., Yilmaz, H.N. and Gursoy, B. (2021) Postoperative Evaluation of Er:YAG Laser, Piezosurgery, and Rotary Systems Used for Osteotomy in Mandibular Third-Molar Extractions. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery: Official Publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, 49, 64-69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2020.11.010