摘要
目的:系统评价下颌阻生智齿拔出后引流的意义。方法:通过检索Cochrane图书馆(2011年第4期)、MEDLINE(1950-2012)、EMbase(1950-2012)和中国生物医学文献数据库(1979-2012)收集全世界关于下颌阻生智齿拔出后引流与未引流的随机对照试验/临床对照试验(RCT/CCT),并用RevMan 5.0 Tutorial软件进行统计分析。结果:Meta分析结果显示:下颌阻生智齿拔除后引流能减轻术后第3、7 d的面部肿胀度{[MD=-3.56,95%C(I-4.62.12,-2.49)]、[MD=-1.78,95%C(I-3.06,-0.49)]},但并不能减轻术后第1、3、7 d的张口受限程度{[MD=3.57 mm,95%CI(0.08,7.06)]、MD=6.30 mm,95%C(I 5.07,7.53)]、MD=2.01 mm,95%C(I 0.51,3.52)]}。结论:下颌阻生智齿拔除后引流会加重术后张口受限,但能减轻患者的面部肿胀度。
Objective： To evaluate the effect of the drainage after remolval of mandibular third molars. Method： The Cochrane Library （2011.4th）, MEDLINE （1950 to 2012）,EMBASE （1950 to 2012）,and the Chinese Biomedicine Database （1979 to 2012） were searched to collect randomized controlled trials / controlled clinical trials （RCT / CCT） of comparing drainage with no-drainage after impacted mandibular third molars surgery. The RevMan 5.0 software Tutorial was used for data analyses. Result： Meta -analysis results showed that：drainage can reduce the postoperative 3,7 day of the facial swelling { [MD=-3.56, 95 % CI （-4.62.12, -2.49）], [MD=- 1.78,95 % CI （-3.06, -0.49） ] }, but it does not reduce postopera- tive days 1,3 and 7 of the limitation of mouth opening {[MD=3.57 mm,95 % CI （0.08,7.06）],MD=6.30 ram, 95 % CI （5.07, 7.53）1, MD=2.01 ram, 95 % CI （0.51,3.52） ] }. Conclusion： drainage can not alleviate the limitation of mouth open ing, but can control the patient＇s facial swelling.
出处
《临床口腔医学杂志》
2012年第10期603-605,共3页
Journal of Clinical Stomatology
关键词
引流
下颌阻生智齿
META分析
随机对照试验
drainage
mandibular third molar
meta-analysis
randomized controlled trials
