摘要
目的:通过Pancherz法对比研究微种植钉支抗在SUS^2固定功能矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ~1类中的作用特点。方法:应用SUS^2下颌前伸矫治器联合固定矫治器分别对24例安氏Ⅱ~1类下颌后缩病例进行功能矫治,其中12例不使用微种植钉支抗,为C组,另外12例采用微种植钉增加下颌牙弓支抗,为T组,所有患者治疗6～8个月,治疗前后摄头颅侧位片,并进行Pancherz头影测量分析,SPSS 15.0统计学软件进行t检验。结果:2组患者治疗前后颏前点位置改变(Δpg/OLp),下颌切牙变化(Δli/OLp-Δpg/OLp)和下颌磨牙变化(Δlm/OLp-Δpg/OLp)均有统计学差异。2组覆盖明显减小,C组骨因素45.8%,牙因素54.2%,T组骨因素71.2%,牙因素28.8%。两组磨牙关系均得到改善,C组骨因素54.6%,牙因素45.4%,T组骨因素81.4%,牙因素18.6%。结论:2种方法矫治Ⅱ~1类错均可促进下颌骨生长,改善覆盖和磨牙关系。Pancherz分析法分析表明,在前牙覆盖及磨牙关系的改善中,SUS^2联合微种植钉支抗表现出相对更多的骨性变化。
Objective： To analyze the effects of SUS2 appliances with and without micro-implant anchorage in the treatment of Class II,division 1 malocclusion by using Pancherz’s analysis approach. Methods： 24 children with Class II,division 1 malocclusion were divided 2 groups（ n = 12） treated by SUS2 appliances with（ group T） and without（ group C） micro-implant anchorage respectively for6-8 months. Cephalometric radiographs before and after treatment were taken and analyzed by Pancherz ’s analysis approach.Students’ t-test was used to determine the differences between the 2 groups. Results： After treatment ΔPg/OLP,Δli/OLp-Δpg/Olp and Δlm/OLp-Δpg/OLp were significantly changed in both groups（ P 〈 0. 05）. In group C over jet decreased,45. 8% by skeletal factor and 54. 2% by dental factor,in group T,71. 2% by skeletal factor and 18. 6% by dental factor. Conclusion： Both the two ways can effectively simulate the mandibular growth,improve the overjet and molar relationship. The SUS2 with micro-implant anchorage is more effective in the skeletal changes than the other.
作者
任继业
REN Jiye(529000,Orthodontics Department,Jiangmen Municipal Stomatological Hospital,Chin)
出处
《实用口腔医学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2018年第4期552-556,共5页
Journal of Practical Stomatology
基金
江门市科技局科技计划项目([2016]102)
