论文部分内容阅读
目的比较微种植支抗与上颌横腭杆加Nance弓支抗在上颌前突或双颌前突中的应用效果。方法选取永丰县中医院口腔科2012年5月—2014年11月收治的54例上颌前突或双颌前突患者,根据不同的支抗分为微种植体支抗组(A组)和上颌横腭杆加Nance弓组(B组),各27例。A组患者采用微种植体支抗治疗,B组患者采用上颌横腭杆联合Nance弓支抗治疗。并根据治疗前与治疗后X线投影测量相关指标,对不同的支抗方法的效果评定。结果患者完成治疗与关闭上颌与下颌拔牙间隙后,尖牙、磨牙中性或者是完全远中关系,前牙的覆颌覆盖属于正常标准,上颌与下颌牙列尖窝属于交错联系,解除开唇露齿,对侧貌具有改善作用。A组患者在矫治时,种植钉都十分稳定,无松动现象,上颌切牙切缘内收4.0mm,下颌切牙切缘内收4.9mm,磨牙平均向前移动1.0mm;B组上颌切牙切缘内收4.4mm,下颌切牙切缘内收3.5mm,磨牙平均向前移动2.3mm。治疗前两组患者硬组织测量指标比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后两组患者ANB角、FH-MP角、U1-NA角、U1-NA长度、U1-SN角、L1-NB角,L1-NB长度、L1-MP下颌平面角、U1-L1角、U6-Pt PNS长度比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在具备一定条件下,微种植体支抗可以作为加强支抗的首要选择;在不具备种植体支抗的前提下,采用上颌横腭杆与Nance弓支抗的效果也较好,两种方法在上颌前突或双颌前突中的而应用,能够为临床提供充分的支抗。
Objective To compare the effect of micro-implanting support and maxillary transverse palatal pole plus Nance arch support in maxillary protrusion or bimaxillary protrusion. Methods 54 cases of maxillary protrusion or bimaxillary protrusion who were treated in Department of Stomatology, Yongfeng Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine from May 2012 to November 2014 were divided into two groups: group A (micro-implant anchorage) and group B The maxillary transverse palatal plus Nance arch group (group B), 27 cases in each. Group A patients were treated with micro-implant support, and patients in group B were treated with maxillary transverse palate and Nance arch support. And according to the pre-treatment and post-treatment X-ray projection measurement related indicators, different methods of evaluation of the effectiveness of the support. Results Patients completed treatment and close the maxillary and mandibular extraction gap, canine, molars, or completely far-away relationship between the coverage of the anterior teeth covered the mandible is normal, the maxillary and mandibular dentition are staggered contact, lift the lips Toothy, on the profile to improve the role. A group of patients in the correction, the planting spikes are very stable, no loosening phenomenon, maxillary incisors edge adduction 4.0mm, mandibular incisors marginal adduction 4.9mm, molars move forward 1.0mm on average; Group B maxillary incisors The incisor adduction 4.4mm, mandibular incisors edge adduction 3.5mm, molars moving forward 2.3mm on average. There was no significant difference in the measurement of hard tissue between the two groups before treatment (P> 0.05). The ANB angle, FH-MP angle, U1-NA angle, U1-NA length, U1-SN angle, L1-NB angle, L1-NB length, L1-MP mandibular plane angle, U1-L1 angle and U6-Pt PNS length had statistical significance (P <0.05). Conclusion Under certain conditions, micro-implant anchorage can be the first choice to strengthen the support. In the absence of implant support, the use of maxillary transverse palatal pole and Nance bow support effect is better, two Methods in the maxillary protrusion or bimaxillary protrusion in the application, to provide adequate clinical support.