期刊导航

论文摘要

微型种植体支抗及口外弓支抗矫治安氏Ⅱ类1 分类错牙合畸形的比较研究

The comparative study of the treatment of Angle class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion

作者:史建陆,林艺翚

Author:SHI Jian-lu, LIN Yi-hui.

收稿日期:1900-01-01          年卷(期)页码:2009,36(1):16-16~20

期刊名称:国际口腔医学杂志

Journal Name:International Journal of Stomatology

关键字:安氏Ⅱ类1 分类错牙合畸形,MBT 技术,微型种植体支抗,口外弓支抗,

Key words:Angle class II division 1 malocclusion, MBT technique, micro-implant anchorage, headgear anchorage,

基金项目:

中文摘要

目的 通过与传统口外弓支抗(HGA)技术进行比较,回顾性研究微型种植体支抗(MIA)技术结合MBT直丝弓矫治器的临床疗效。 方法 选择采用MIA 结合MBT 技术(A组)及HGA 结合MBT 技术(B组)矫治的成人安氏Ⅱ类1 分类错畸形患者共40 例,进行矫治前后X 线头影测量、模型测量和疗程疗效的比较。 结果 1)A、B 组矫治前后覆、覆盖和切牙位置等指标均有明显减小,差异有统计学意义。2)对A、B 组矫治前后的差值进行比较,其中SNA(°)、U1-SN(°)、U1-PP(mm)、U6-Ptm(mm)和OJ(mm)的变化可以表明A 组的矫治效果更好,仅Li-E(mm)减小的变化表明B 组矫治效果更好,差异有统计学意义。3)矫治的疗程A组(平均13个月)明显短于B 组(平均19个月),差异有统计学意义。4)比较A 组矫治前后的MIA 在矢状向和垂直向位移后发现,MIA 能够发挥支抗作用且保持稳定。 结论 A、B 组均可以获得较好的矫治效果,但A 组不仅能缩短疗程,还可以提高疗效。

英文摘要

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate curative efficacy of micro-implant anchorage(MIA) and headgear anchorage(HGA) with MBT straight wire appliance in the treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion patients. Methods The study was performed on 40 selected adults making use of MBT with MIA(group A) and with HGA(group B). We examined the cephalometric and model analysis before and after treatment and compared the curative effect between group A and B.

Results 1)There are significant curative changes in group A and B, such as the overjet, over bite and the position of incisors. These differences have statistic significance. 2)The curative effects are different between group A and B. Except for the Li-E(mm), most of the values such as SNA(°), U1-SN(°), U1-PP(mm), U6-Ptm(mm), and OJ(mm) displayed more effective results in group A, and all the differences had statistic meanings. 3)The average period of treatment is shorter in group A(13 months) than in group B(19 months). 4)In group A, the MIA is less shifted both in the sagittal and vertical direction. And it is kept stabilization under orthodontic force.

Conclusion The better curative efficacy could be get both in the group A and B. There were not only shorter periods of treatment but also better curative effect in the group A than group B.

上一条:即刻修复1 年后种植体周围边缘骨吸收的临床评价

下一条:8 例成人安氏Ⅱ类1 分类错(牙合)畸形患者的二次矫治

关闭

Copyright © 2020四川大学期刊社 版权所有.

地址:成都市一环路南一段24号

邮编:610065