安氏Ⅱ类错单期矫治和双期矫治的疗效比较

Comparison of One-phase and Two-phase Treatment for ClassⅡMalocclusions

目的:分析采用双期或者单期矫治的安氏Ⅱ类错儿童的矫治结果,比较这两种矫治方案的疗效。方法:选择安氏Ⅱ类错患者30例,∠ANB>60,覆盖>7mm,其中16例在恒牙列早期采用固定矫治器矫治,14例自混合牙列或恒牙列早期起先用Herbst矫治器矫治,然后使用固定矫治器矫治。采用PAR指数对每个患者第一期治疗前、第二期治疗前及第二期治疗结束后的模型进行测量。比较各治疗阶段的PAR分值。结果:双期矫治第一期矫治结束后,前牙的覆盖、覆改善,两组间有显著性差别,磨牙关系亦有改善,与单期矫治组相比,有显著性差别。矫治后PAR总分、加权分值、加权总分差以及减少百分率有显著性差异。第二阶段结束时,两组之间的PAR分数没有差别,整个PAR的百分比变化也是如此,矫治结束后两者的PAR百分比变化无差别。结论:对于安氏Ⅱ类错,无论采用双期矫治还是单期矫治,都能使关系得到改善。对部分患者而言,采用疗程相对较长的双期矫治意义不大。

Objective： The purpose of this study was to compare the dentoalveolar outcomes after one -phase and two - phase orthodontic treatment of Class Ⅱ malocclusions. Methods： 16 Class Ⅱ subjects were treatmented with fixed appliance in one -phase; 14 Class Ⅱ subjects were treatmented with Herbs appliance and fixed appliance in two- phase. The peer assessment rating （PAR）was calculated from pretreatment, prephase two, and final study models. Then we evaluated the differences among each stage. Results： After early treatment, there were significant differences in ovetbite and molar relationship, the mean score reduction and the percentage reduction of PAR were different between two groups. At the end of phase two, there were no differences between two groups. Conclusion： Evidence suggests that there is no difference between two- phase treatment and one-phase treatment.