摘要
目的对比应用方丝弓矫治器与直丝弓矫治器关闭拔牙间隙恢复时间,评价方丝弓矫治器与直丝弓矫治器的临床治疗效果。方法选取2002-2004年间应用方丝弓或者直丝弓完成双颌固定矫治器治疗的正畸患者60例,利用PAR指数对患者治疗前后模型进行测量,并记录患者治疗前后的PAR总分值及差值,将患者按照拔牙或非拔牙正畸治疗方式结合治疗前测量PAR总分值相同者分成方丝弓组和直丝弓组,每组30例,对两组患者的测量数据进行统计学分析;结果两种治疗方法在关闭拔牙间隙时在所用时间上相比直丝弓组比方丝弓组疗程要短,直丝弓组后牙排列效果比方丝弓组好,PAR分值较方丝弓组低(P<0.01),直丝弓组治疗疗程平均缩短了近4个月。两组患者治疗后其余各项PAR分值和患者治疗前后的PAR差值均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论直丝弓矫治器在治疗关闭拔牙间隙过程中对牙齿排列定位较准确,治疗疗程上较方丝弓矫治器短,矫治效率比方丝弓高。
Objective To compare the application of edgewise appliance and straight wire appliance recovery time of extraction space closure,evaluating edgewise appliance and straight wire appliance clinical outcomes.Methods Between 2002 to 2004 in a hospital dental applications edgewise or straight wire fixed appliances complete the bimaxillary orthodontic treatment of 60 patients,the use of PAR index model of the patient before and after treatment were measured and recorded patients' PAR and the difference between the total score,patients in accordance with the extraction or non-extraction orthodontic treatment combined with measurement of PAR total scores before treatment were divided into the same group and the edgewise straight wire group,30 cases in each of the two groups,patients for statistical analysis of measurement data.Results The two treatment methods in the extraction space closure time when compared to the use of straight wire treatment group for example,wire groups should be short,straight wire group for example,after the effect of wire teeth arrangement group is better,PAR scores were lower than the edgewise(P0.01),straight wire group therapy sessions reduced by an average of nearly 4 months.Two groups of patients after treatment PAR score and the rest of the patients before and after the PAR was no significant difference(P0.05). Conclusions The straight wire appliance in the treatment of extraction space closed during the positioning of the teeth arranged was more accurate than edgewise appliance,and has short corse and high efficiency.
出处
《医药论坛杂志》
2011年第4期77-78,81,共3页
Journal of Medical Forum