MBT直丝弓矫治器结合MIA技术在安氏Ⅱ型1分类错牙合畸形矫治中的疗效观察
|
摘要
目的:观察MBT直丝弓矫治器结合微种植支抗(micro-implant anchorage,MIA)技术在安式Ⅱ型1分类错牙合畸形矫治中的疗效。方法:选取2015年1月-2017年12月于承德市口腔医院口腔科就诊的100例安式Ⅱ型1分类错牙合畸形患者,按照随机数表法分为对照组和观察组,每组50例。对照组:采用传统头帽口外弓支抗(headgear anchorage, HGA)技术结合MBT直丝弓矫治器治疗;观察组:采用口腔正畸MIA技术结合MBT直丝弓矫治器治疗。对比两组治疗前后X线头影测量指标、OB、OJ、拔牙间隙关闭时间和临床疗程等情况。结果:SNA、SNB在治疗前后和两组间均无统计学差异、对照组L1-NB治疗前后无显著性差异,其余各指标治疗后均较治疗前有显著性改善,且观察组明显优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗后两组患者OB、OJ值均较治疗前降低,且观察组OB、OJ值均低于对照组,具有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组磨牙位移距离、拔牙间隙关闭时间及临床疗程均显著短于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:MIA技术结合MBT直丝弓矫治器能够显著改善安式Ⅱ型1分类错牙合畸形患者头影测量各项指标,改善矫治后口腔结构,缩短矫治疗程和拔牙间隙关闭时间,具有较高的稳定性和较好的临床疗效。
Objective To observe the efficacy of MBT straight wire appliance combined with microimplant anchorage(MIA) technique in the correction of Angletype Ⅱ 1 malocclusion. Methods 100 patients with Angleclass Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion who were treated in the department of stomatology of our hospital from January 2015 to December 2017 were selected. All patients were divided into control group and observation group according to the random number table method. There were 50 cases in each group.HGA and MIA technique combined with MBT direct wire appliance was used respectively in the two groups. The control group was treated with traditional headgear anchorage(HGA) technique and MBT straight wire appliance. The observation group was treated with orthodonticMIA technique and MBT straight wire appliance.The X-ray cephalometric parameters before and after treatment were compared between the two groups, as well as the OB, OJ, implant stability, tooth extraction gap closing time, and clinical course of orthodontic treatment. Results There were no significant difference in SNA and SNB before and after treatment and between the two groups, there was no significant difference in L1-NB of the control group before and after treatment. The other indexes were significantly improved after treatment, and the observation group was significantly better than the control group, the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);After treatment, the OB and OJ of the two groups were lower than those before treatment, and the OB and OJ of the observation group were lower than those of the control group(P<0.05). The molar displacement distance, tooth extraction gap closing time and clinical treatment time of the observation groupwere significantly shorter than those in the control group(P<0.05). Conclusion The combination of MIA technology and MBT straight wire appliance can significantly improve the cephalometric measurement of Angle class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion patients, which can improve the oral cavity structure, and shorten the course of orthodontic treatment and tooth extraction gap closing time with better clinical efficacy, and is worth further promotion in clinical treatment.
Objective To observe the efficacy of MBT straight wire appliance combined with microimplant anchorage(MIA) technique in the correction of Angletype Ⅱ 1 malocclusion. Methods 100 patients with Angleclass Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion who were treated in the department of stomatology of our hospital from January 2015 to December 2017 were selected. All patients were divided into control group and observation group according to the random number table method. There were 50 cases in each group.HGA and MIA technique combined with MBT direct wire appliance was used respectively in the two groups. The control group was treated with traditional headgear anchorage(HGA) technique and MBT straight wire appliance. The observation group was treated with orthodonticMIA technique and MBT straight wire appliance.The X-ray cephalometric parameters before and after treatment were compared between the two groups, as well as the OB, OJ, implant stability, tooth extraction gap closing time, and clinical course of orthodontic treatment. Results There were no significant difference in SNA and SNB before and after treatment and between the two groups, there was no significant difference in L1-NB of the control group before and after treatment. The other indexes were significantly improved after treatment, and the observation group was significantly better than the control group, the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);After treatment, the OB and OJ of the two groups were lower than those before treatment, and the OB and OJ of the observation group were lower than those of the control group(P<0.05). The molar displacement distance, tooth extraction gap closing time and clinical treatment time of the observation groupwere significantly shorter than those in the control group(P<0.05). Conclusion The combination of MIA technology and MBT straight wire appliance can significantly improve the cephalometric measurement of Angle class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion patients, which can improve the oral cavity structure, and shorten the course of orthodontic treatment and tooth extraction gap closing time with better clinical efficacy, and is worth further promotion in clinical treatment.
引文
[1]徐璐璐.成人牙周病正畸治疗疗效分析[J].中华老年口腔医学杂志,2013,11(1):147-149.
[2]赵勇,张燎,张强,等.安氏Ⅱ1类错牙合畸形不同垂直骨面型磨牙倾斜度的研究[J].现代口腔医学杂志,2017,31(4):206-209.
[3]史建陆,林艺犟.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[J].国际口腔医学杂志,2009,36(1):16-20.
[4]李伟,姚毅章,赵国廷,等.微型种植体支抗在成人口腔正畸中的应用分析[J].贵阳中医学院学报,2013,35(5):103-104.
[5]Li P,Feng J,Shen G,et al.Severe Class II Division1 malocclusion in an adolescent patient,treated witha novel sagittal-guidance Twin-block appliance[J].Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop,2016,150(1):153-166.
[6]杨秀慈,唐枝,赵暖.恒牙期固定正畸矫治患者的口腔护理[J].河北医药,2013,35(9):1420-1421.
[7]刘涛.儿童正畸治疗行为表现及应对方法[J].河北医药,2013,35(8):1211-1212.
[8]冯毅.微型种植体支抗在青少年口腔正畸治疗中的应用[J].河北医药,2013,35(3):352-353.
[9]Janson G,Aliagadel CA,Niederberger A.Changes in apical base sagittal relationship in Class II malocclusion treatment with and without premolar extractions:a systematic review and metaanalysis[J].Angle Orthod,2016,87(2):173-179.
[10]曹秀华,孙士捧,郑录川.微型种植体支抗及口外弓支抗矫治骨性Ⅱ类错牙合畸形的比较研究[J].全科口腔医学杂志,2016,3(7):72-73.
[11]孙晔,邱荣华,刘美娣.微种植体支抗治疗成人骨性安氏Ⅱ类错牙合的疗效评估[J].湖南师范大学学报(医学版),2015,12(3):111-113.
[12]刘霆合钧,王玉玲,李敏.微型种植体支抗与口外弓支抗对成年人安氏Ⅱ1类错牙合患者的疗效对比分析[J].中国口腔种植学杂志,2017,22(2):73-76.
[13]Kim K,Choi SH,Choi E H,et al.Unpredictability of soft tissue changes after camouflage treatment of ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion with maximum anterior retraction using miniscrews[J].Angle Orthod,2017,87(2):518-526.
[14]张郁,安志彬.MBT直丝弓和传动直丝弓矫治器对安氏Ⅱ类错牙合患者的疗效比较[J].中南医学科学杂志,2017,45(5):503-505.
[15]Nilsson JJ,Shu X,Magnusson BH,et al.Treatment of adolescent patients with class II division 1 malocclusion using Eruption guidance appliance:a comparative study with twin-block and activator-headgear appliances[J].Swedish Dental J,2016,40(1):79-89.
[16]李伟,黄玉婷.安氏Ⅱ类错牙合牙量不调的对比研究[J].牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志,2016,26(5):306-308.
[17]张萍,余波,杨甜甜,等.微型种植体支抗治疗安氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合畸形的临床应用[J].中国美容医学,2014,23(1):56-59.
[18]陈威.微型种植体支抗与口外弓支抗纠正成年人安氏Ⅱ1类错牙合的对比研究[J].浙江创伤外科,2016,21(5):949-951.
[2]赵勇,张燎,张强,等.安氏Ⅱ1类错牙合畸形不同垂直骨面型磨牙倾斜度的研究[J].现代口腔医学杂志,2017,31(4):206-209.
[3]史建陆,林艺犟.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[J].国际口腔医学杂志,2009,36(1):16-20.
[4]李伟,姚毅章,赵国廷,等.微型种植体支抗在成人口腔正畸中的应用分析[J].贵阳中医学院学报,2013,35(5):103-104.
[5]Li P,Feng J,Shen G,et al.Severe Class II Division1 malocclusion in an adolescent patient,treated witha novel sagittal-guidance Twin-block appliance[J].Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop,2016,150(1):153-166.
[6]杨秀慈,唐枝,赵暖.恒牙期固定正畸矫治患者的口腔护理[J].河北医药,2013,35(9):1420-1421.
[7]刘涛.儿童正畸治疗行为表现及应对方法[J].河北医药,2013,35(8):1211-1212.
[8]冯毅.微型种植体支抗在青少年口腔正畸治疗中的应用[J].河北医药,2013,35(3):352-353.
[9]Janson G,Aliagadel CA,Niederberger A.Changes in apical base sagittal relationship in Class II malocclusion treatment with and without premolar extractions:a systematic review and metaanalysis[J].Angle Orthod,2016,87(2):173-179.
[10]曹秀华,孙士捧,郑录川.微型种植体支抗及口外弓支抗矫治骨性Ⅱ类错牙合畸形的比较研究[J].全科口腔医学杂志,2016,3(7):72-73.
[11]孙晔,邱荣华,刘美娣.微种植体支抗治疗成人骨性安氏Ⅱ类错牙合的疗效评估[J].湖南师范大学学报(医学版),2015,12(3):111-113.
[12]刘霆合钧,王玉玲,李敏.微型种植体支抗与口外弓支抗对成年人安氏Ⅱ1类错牙合患者的疗效对比分析[J].中国口腔种植学杂志,2017,22(2):73-76.
[13]Kim K,Choi SH,Choi E H,et al.Unpredictability of soft tissue changes after camouflage treatment of ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion with maximum anterior retraction using miniscrews[J].Angle Orthod,2017,87(2):518-526.
[14]张郁,安志彬.MBT直丝弓和传动直丝弓矫治器对安氏Ⅱ类错牙合患者的疗效比较[J].中南医学科学杂志,2017,45(5):503-505.
[15]Nilsson JJ,Shu X,Magnusson BH,et al.Treatment of adolescent patients with class II division 1 malocclusion using Eruption guidance appliance:a comparative study with twin-block and activator-headgear appliances[J].Swedish Dental J,2016,40(1):79-89.
[16]李伟,黄玉婷.安氏Ⅱ类错牙合牙量不调的对比研究[J].牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志,2016,26(5):306-308.
[17]张萍,余波,杨甜甜,等.微型种植体支抗治疗安氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合畸形的临床应用[J].中国美容医学,2014,23(1):56-59.
[18]陈威.微型种植体支抗与口外弓支抗纠正成年人安氏Ⅱ1类错牙合的对比研究[J].浙江创伤外科,2016,21(5):949-951.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |