Effectiveness of multiple-visit root canal therapy versus single-visit root canal therapy in the treatment of dental pulp diseases
多次法根管治疗和一次性根管治疗牙体牙髓病的效果

摘要

目的 探讨多次法根管治疗与一次性根管治疗在牙体牙髓病中的疗效差异。通过对比两种治疗方法的临床效果，为临床实践提供参考依据。方法 选取2023年11月至2024年11月期间就诊的100例患者进行研究，随机分为两组，每组各50例。一组接受多次法根管治疗，另一组接受一次性根管治疗。观察指标包括疼痛缓解率、牙齿功能恢复情况、治疗后并发症发生率、治疗所需时间以及患者满意度。所有数据采用统计软件进行分析，以P<0.05作为显著性差异标准。结果 多次法根管治疗组在疼痛缓解方面，3天内缓解率达到86%，而一次性根管治疗组为78%；在牙齿功能恢复上，多次法根管治疗组达到92%，一次性根管治疗组为88%；治疗后并发症方面，多次法根管治疗组的发生率为10%，一次性根管治疗组为14%；治疗所需时间分别为多次法根管治疗组平均为3.5小时，一次性根管治疗组平均为2小时；患者满意度调查结果显示，多次法根管治疗组满意率为90%，一次性根管治疗组满意率为85%。上述各项指标中，仅疼痛缓解率和患者满意度存在统计学差异（P<0.05）。结论 本次研究表明，虽然多次法根管治疗在疼痛缓解和患者满意度方面略优于一次性根管治疗，但在牙齿功能恢复、并发症发生率及治疗所需时间等方面，两种治疗方法的效果相近。因此，在选择根管治疗方法时，应综合考虑患者的实际情况、医生的经验以及资源的有效利用等因素。此外，尽管统计数据揭示了某些方面的优劣，但最终的选择应基于个体化评估和医患共同决策。

Abstract

Objective To investigate the differences in efficacy between multiple-visit root canal therapy and single-visit root canal therapy in the treatment of dental pulp diseases. By comparing the clinical effects of the two treatment methods, this study aims to provide a reference for clinical practice.
Methods A total of 100 patients who sought treatment between November 2023 to November 2024 were selected for this study and randomly divided into two groups, with 50 patients in each group. One group received multiple-visit root canal therapy, while the other group received single-visit root canal therapy. The observation indicators included pain relief rate, recovery of dental function, incidence of post-treatment complications, duration of treatment, and patient satisfaction. All data were analyzed using statistical software, with P<0.05 considered as the criterion for statistically significant differences.
Results In the multiple-visit root canal therapy group, the pain relief rate reached 86% within 3 days, compared to 78% in the single-visit root canal therapy group. In terms of dental function recovery, the multiple-visit root canal therapy group achieved a recovery rate of 92%, while the single-visit root canal therapy group achieved 88%. Regarding post-treatment complications, the incidence rate was 10% in the multiple-visit root canal therapy group and 14% in the single-visit root canal therapy group. The average duration of treatment was 3.5 hours for the multiple-visit root canal therapy group and 2 hours for the single-visit root canal therapy group. Patient satisfaction survey results showed that the satisfaction rate was 90% in the multiple-visit root canal therapy group and 85% in the single-visit root canal therapy group. Among the above indicators, only pain relief rate and patient satisfaction showed statistically significant differences (P<0.05).
Conclusion   This study indicates that although multiple-visit root canal therapy is slightly superior to single-visit root canal therapy in terms of pain relief and patient satisfaction, the two treatment methods have similar effects in dental function recovery, incidence of complications, and duration of treatment. Therefore, when choosing a root canal therapy method, comprehensive consideration should be given to the patient's actual condition, the doctor's experience, and the effective utilization of resources. Furthermore, despite the statistical data revealing certain advantages and disadvantages, the final choice should be based on individualized assessment and shared decision-making between doctors and patients.