Herbst矫治器与头帽肌激动器矫治骨性安氏Ⅱ类错的比较研究

Comparison of the Herbst and headgear activator in treatment of skeletal Class Ⅱ malocclusion

目的对比研究头帽Ａｃｔｉｖａｔｏｒ与Ｈｅｒｂｓｔ矫治器治疗骨性安氏Ⅱ类错的机理。方法应用 Ｐａｎｃｈｅｒｚ设计的 Ｈｅｒｂｓｔ矫治器及 Ｖａｎ ｂｅｅｋ设计的 Ａｃｔｉｖａｔｏｒ治疗Ⅱ类错，以 Ｘ线头影测量方法评价疗效。结果头帽Ａｃｔｉｖａｔｏｒ对上颌生长抑制作用强于Ｈｅｒｂｓｔ矫治器，而Ｈｅｒｂｓｔ矫治器刺激下颌生长尤其是水平向生长效果优于头帽Ａｃｔｉｖａｔｏｒ；头帽Ａｃｔｉｖａｔｏｒ内收压入上前牙效果显著；而Ｈｅｒｂｓｔ矫治器压低下前牙较为明显。结论头帽Ａｃｔｉｖａｔｏｒ更适于矫治上颌矢状及垂直向发育过度的Ⅱ类错，Ｈｅｒｂｓｔ矫治器适于矫治下颌发育不足的Ⅱ类错。

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of skeletal Class Ⅱ malocclusion treatment with headgear activator and Herbst appliance. Method 28 Chinese children were divided into two groups and treated by headgear activator and Herbst appliance. The cephalometric analysis was used to evaluate the effects of treatment. Results Headgear activator can restrict the maxila growth and retract the upper incisors effectively, Herbst appliance can stimulate the growth of mandible. Conclusion Headgear activator should be applied to treat Class Ⅱ malocclusion with maxillary protrusion. Herbst appliance was suitable for treatment of Class Ⅱ malocclusion with retrusive mandible.