PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To compare oral adhesive bandages with the classic compression method and evaluate the clinical efficacy of this wound dressing material in improving postoperative comfort, wound healing, and hemostasis in tooth extraction.
METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized controlled clinical trial. A total of 120 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to the study group and the control group. In the study group, oral adhesive bandages were used as wound dressing. In the control group, patients bit on cotton balls and gauze, as usual. Hemorrhage, comfort, and healing levels were evaluated at postoperative 1 h, 24 h, and 7 days. The adhesion time of the oral adhesive bandages was also recorded.
RESULTS: The average adhesion time of the oral adhesive bandages was 26.6 h. At postoperative 1 and 24 h, the hemostatic levels of the oral adhesive bandage group were significantly higher than those of the control group. The oral adhesive bandage group also reported significantly higher comfort scores than the control group. Both groups had similar healing levels and side effects. But the mean score for wound healing was slightly higher in the oral adhesive bandage group.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral adhesive bandages were more effective than cotton balls and gauze in providing hemostatic and comfort effects on extraction wounds.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral adhesive bandages possess clinical value in the management of extraction wounds.
METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized controlled clinical trial. A total of 120 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to the study group and the control group. In the study group, oral adhesive bandages were used as wound dressing. In the control group, patients bit on cotton balls and gauze, as usual. Hemorrhage, comfort, and healing levels were evaluated at postoperative 1 h, 24 h, and 7 days. The adhesion time of the oral adhesive bandages was also recorded.
RESULTS: The average adhesion time of the oral adhesive bandages was 26.6 h. At postoperative 1 and 24 h, the hemostatic levels of the oral adhesive bandage group were significantly higher than those of the control group. The oral adhesive bandage group also reported significantly higher comfort scores than the control group. Both groups had similar healing levels and side effects. But the mean score for wound healing was slightly higher in the oral adhesive bandage group.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral adhesive bandages were more effective than cotton balls and gauze in providing hemostatic and comfort effects on extraction wounds.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral adhesive bandages possess clinical value in the management of extraction wounds.
摘要：
目的：比较口腔黏贴绷带与经典的压迫方法，并评估这种伤口敷料在提高术后舒适度方面的临床疗效。伤口愈合，和拔牙止血。
方法：本研究设计为随机对照临床试验。共纳入120例患者，随机分为研究组和对照组。在研究小组中,口腔粘合绷带被用作伤口敷料。在对照组中，病人咬棉球和纱布，像往常一样。出血,comfort,术后1小时评估愈合水平，24h,和7天。还记录口腔粘性绷带的粘附时间。
结果：口腔黏贴绷带的平均粘连时间为26.6h。口腔黏贴绷带组的止血水平明显高于对照组。口腔粘合绷带组的舒适度评分也明显高于对照组。两组的愈合水平和副作用相似。但口腔黏着绷带组伤口愈合的平均评分略高。
结论：口腔黏贴绷带比棉球和纱布对拔牙伤口的止血和舒适效果更有效。
结论：口腔黏贴绷带在治疗拔除伤口方面具有临床价值。
方法：本研究设计为随机对照临床试验。共纳入120例患者，随机分为研究组和对照组。在研究小组中,口腔粘合绷带被用作伤口敷料。在对照组中，病人咬棉球和纱布，像往常一样。出血,comfort,术后1小时评估愈合水平，24h,和7天。还记录口腔粘性绷带的粘附时间。
结果：口腔黏贴绷带的平均粘连时间为26.6h。口腔黏贴绷带组的止血水平明显高于对照组。口腔粘合绷带组的舒适度评分也明显高于对照组。两组的愈合水平和副作用相似。但口腔黏着绷带组伤口愈合的平均评分略高。
结论：口腔黏贴绷带比棉球和纱布对拔牙伤口的止血和舒适效果更有效。
结论：口腔黏贴绷带在治疗拔除伤口方面具有临床价值。
