摘要
目的探讨Tip-EdgePlus差动直丝弓技术和直丝弓技术治疗伴有重度深覆殆和深覆盖的安氏Ⅱ^1分类错黯畸形疗效的异同。方法样本包括恒牙初期伴有重度深覆黯和深覆盖的安氏Ⅱ^1错黯畸形患者46例，Tip-EdgePlus组23例，使用Tip-Edge差动直丝弓技术治疗；MBT直丝弓组23例使用直丝弓技术结合口外弓强支抗治疗。治疗前后拍摄头颅侧位片并测量，进行成组设计和配对设计t检验。结果两组患者治疗中上下颌骨、前牙突度、覆殆、覆盖、软组织变化量差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；Tip-EdgePlus组L1-MP减小2．97inIn，L1／MP增加1．87°，L1／NB增加2．02°；MBT直丝弓组L1-MP减小0．50mm，L1／MP减小3．88°，L1／NB减小6．88°，两组差异有统计学意义（P〈O．05）。结论未使用额外支抗的Tip-EdgePlus差动直丝弓技术和使用强支抗的直丝弓技术治疗恒牙初期严重安氏II。病例能取得相似的软硬组织效果；Tip-EdgePlus技术比直丝弓技术能更多的压低下前牙，治疗后Tip-EdgePlus组下切牙唇倾度比直丝弓技术组稍大。
Objective To compare the outcomes of Class Ⅱ patients with severe deep overbite and overjet corrected with Tip-Edge Plus and straight wire techniques. Methods The sample comprised 46 Class II patients with severe overbite and overjet in the early permanent dentition. Twenty-three patients were treated with Tip-Edge Plus technique and the other 23 patients were treated with straight wire technique. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before and after treatment. Computerized cephalometric analysis was carried out. Paired t tests and Student＇s t-tests were performed. Results Both techniques produced significant changes in overbite, overjet and profile. No significant differences between both techniques were found except the position of the lower incisors, the lower incisors were intruded 2. 97ram and protruded 1.87°with reference to mandibular plane in Tip-Edge Plus group, while in straight wire group lower incisors were intruded 0. 50ram and retroelined 3. 88°. Conclusions Class Ⅱ patients with severe deep overbite and overiet could be treated successfully with straight wire and Tip-Edge Plus techniques. Lower incisors were intruded more in the Tip-Edge Plus group and uprighted more in the straight wire group.
出处
《中华口腔正畸学杂志》
2011年第3期125-129,共5页
Chinese Journal of Orthodontics
