{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.044285111767186844, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03374103753690426, 'mean_word_length': 5.308510638297872, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Study on clinical efficacy and patients' satisfaction of MTA apical barrier technique in treatment of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation].

PURPOSE
To compare the clinical efficacy of MTA apical barrier technique and Vitapex apexification in treatment of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation, and to evaluate the satisfaction of patients.


METHODS
Seventy-five cases of young permanent teeth with periapical inflammation were randomly divided into control group (n=37) and experimental group (n=38). Patients in the control group were treated with Vitapex apexification, while patients in the experimental group were treated with MTA apical barrier technique. The clinical efficacy of the two groups was compared at 3, 6, 9 months and 1 year after treatment, and the average treatment time and average treatment period were compared between 2 groups. The difference of patients' satisfaction with medical environment, health care service, late health care guidance, treatment cost, treatment period and treatment effect were compared between 2 groups. The clinical efficacy, treatment times and period, satisfaction of 2 groups were recorded and analyzed by using SPSS 19.0 software package.


RESULTS
At 3 month and 6 month of revisit, the clinical efficacy of the experimental group was better than the control group, but there was no significant difference between 2 groups (P>0.05). At 9 months and 1 year of revisit, the total efficiency of the experimental group was significantly better than the control group (78.38%:94.74%, P=0.037；75.68%∶97.37%, P=0.006). The treatment time and treatment period of the experimental group were significantly lower than the control group (P<0.05), the values were (3.24±0.39) times, (0.68±0.23) months and (7.78±0.65) times, (8.24±2.95) months. Patients' satisfaction with medical treatment environment, health care service, late health care guidance and treatment period was not significant different between 2 groups (P>0.05). However, patients' satisfaction with treatment cost and treatment effect in the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group (P<0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
MTA apical barrier technique has better clinical efficacy, less treatment time, shorter treatment period and higher satisfaction than Vitapex apexification. It is suitable for clinical application.