两种拔牙模式矫治恒牙早期安氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合的对照研究

两种拔牙模式矫治恒牙早期安氏Ⅱ类1分类错的对照研究

目的 探讨两种拔牙模式矫治恒牙早期安氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合病例的临床疗效.方法 选取29例治疗完成的恒牙早期安氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合患者,其中上颌单颌对称拔除两个前磨牙的14例(A组),双颌左右对称拔除四前磨牙的15例(B组),利用头影测量的方法,分析两组矫治前后软硬组织测量值的变化.结果 两组SNA角、U1-SN角变化无明显差异,两组ANB角、SNB角、Ns-Sn-Pos角、SL值变化有明显差别(P＜0.01～0.001),B组下颌向前自然调控生长及侧貌角改善更明显.结论 矫治恒牙早期安氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合患者,采用上颌单颌拔牙模式要严格把握适应证,否则不利于发挥下颌的生长潜力,矫治后美观效果差.

Objective To investigate the clinical effect of Orthodontic treatment for patients with early permanent dentitions and Angle 2,Division 1 malocclusion with two extraction patterns. Methods 29 patients with permanent dentitions and Angle 2,division 1 malocclusion were selected.They had all finished their Orthodontic treatment and were divided into two groups according to their extraction patterns.14 cases whose two maxillary premolars were extracted symmetrically were put into group A while 15 ones with four mandible and maxillary premolars extracted bilaterally and symmetrically were put into group B.To analyze the variation of soft tissue and bone structure between before treament and after treatment through the study of their cephalmetric data. Results There're no significant differences in SNA and U1-SN in two groups. There're significant differences in ANB,SNB,Ns-Sn-Pos,SL(P<0.01～0.001).The mandible growed forward by itself and the profile improvement are more evident in group B. Conclusion For patients with early permanent dentitions and Angle 2,Division 1 malocclusion,it's important to select the indications when extraction of maxillary premolars only were adopted.Otherwise it's unbenefited for developing the growing potential of the mandible,resulting in poor esthetic effect after treatment.