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O(Jmm)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。
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, overbite 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 （nun）, U6-Ptm （ram）, and OJ （ram） 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.
出处
《国际口腔医学杂志》
CAS
2009年第1期16-20,共5页
International Journal of Stomatology
基金
厦门市卫生科研基金资助项目(WSKY-2005-17)
厦门市科技计划基金资助项目(350Z200607034)
