目的:本研究旨在比较无缝线和多缝线闭合方法对术后疼痛的影响,肿胀,和刺耳,和相关的并发症。
方法:这种前瞻性,随机临床试验在口腔颌面外科进行,果阿牙科学院和医院。纳入标准包括年龄在17至55岁之间的受试者,归类为美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)I,无症状受累的第三磨牙落在中等困难的撞击范围内(佩德森的困难指数:5-7)。研究排除了被归类为ASAII的个体,III,或者IV,那些已知或怀疑对麻醉溶液过敏的人,免疫力低下的患者,以及服用可能影响愈合的药物的个体。孕妇或哺乳期女性以及有出血性疾病史的女性也被排除在外。比较伤口闭合方法:A组用真丝缝线进行初次闭合,B组无缝线闭合。使用简单的随机化方法将受试者分配到特定组。Thisinvolvedusingalottery-basedrandomsequencetoassigneachparticipantstoeitherGroupAorGroupB.面部肿胀,和关卡是关键的结果。次要结果包括舌神经感觉和术后并发症。人口统计因素,手术细节,影像学和围手术期数据,并考虑生理参数。采用非参数检验和参数检验(重复测量ANOVA)。P<0.05时具有统计学意义。
结果:在101名参与者中,两种闭合技术在疼痛方面表现出相似的结果,肿胀,和舌神经功能。然而,无缝合闭合可显著减少三端肌,减少伤口延迟愈合的病例.
结论:与多根缝线相比,手术切除第三磨牙后的无缝线方法可以减少三端肌。虽然痛苦,肿胀,和舌神经功能管理具有可比性。
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the outcomes of suture-less and multiple suture closure methods on postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus, and associated complications.
METHODS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Goa Dental College & Hospital. Inclusion criteria encompassed subjects aged between 17 and 55 years, classified as American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) I, with asymptomatic impacted third molars falling within the moderately difficult impaction range (Pederson\'s difficulty index: 5-7). Study excluded individuals classified as ASA II, III, or IV, those with known or suspected allergies to the anaesthetic solution, immunocompromised patients, and individuals taking medications that could affect healing. Pregnant or lactating females and those with a history of bleeding disorders were also excluded. Wound closure methods were compared: Group A underwent primary closure with silk sutures, while Group B had suture-less closure. Subjects were allocated to the specific groups using a simple randomization method. This involved using a lottery-based random sequence to assign each participant to either Group A or Group B. Pain intensity, facial swelling, and trismus were key outcomes.
Secondary outcomes included lingual nerve sensation and postoperative complications. Demographics factors, surgical details, radiographic and perioperative data, and physiological parameters were considered. Non-parametric tests and parametric test (repeated measure ANOVA) were employed. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Among 101 participants, both closure techniques exhibited similar outcomes in pain, swelling, and lingual nerve function. However, suture-less closure resulted in significantly less trismus and fewer cases of delayed wound healing.
CONCLUSIONS: Suture-less method after surgical removal of third molar may reduce trismus compared to multiple sutures. While pain, swelling, and lingual nerve function management were comparable.