两种不同矫治器结合微种植体矫治上颌前突临床研究

Clinical Study on Two Different Appliances Combined with Implant of Anchorage for Maxillary Protrusion

目的:临床使用自锁托槽和直丝弓矫治器结合微种植体支抗,矫治上颌前突错牙合畸形的疗效比较。方法:选取32例上颌前突错牙合畸形患者,分别使用自锁托槽矫治器结合微种植体支抗(实验组,16例)和传统直丝弓托槽矫治器结合微种植体支抗(对照组,16例)。记录并分析两组患者排齐、关闭间隙和总的治疗时间;测量两组患者尖牙牙根长度和牙槽骨高度,以及头影测量项目,并对治疗前、后的变化进行比较分析。结果:实验组总疗程平均(19.6±5.39)个月,短于对照组的(25.7±5.76)个月,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组尖牙牙根长度和牙槽骨高度治疗前后变化比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);32例牙弓突度均得到改善,实验组治疗后U1-SN角、U1-X(mm)、U1-Y(mm)、A-Y(mm)、UL-Y(mm)均显著低于对照组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:自锁托槽矫治器结合微种植体支抗矫治上颌前突拔牙患者,能显著缩短拔牙间隙关闭的时间,缩短总疗程,前牙覆牙合覆盖的变化显著,侧貌改善明显,且尖牙牙根和牙槽骨无明显吸收。

Objective To study the efficacy of Self-ligating and Straight wire appliances combine with micro-implant anchorage to treat maxillary protrusion. Methods 32 cases of maxillary protrusion patients as research subjects,were randomly divided into the experimental group and the control group, each group contained 16 cases.The control group treated with Roth straight wire brackets combined micro-implant anchorage;the experimental group treated with Quick brackets（made by Germony） combine the micro-implant anchorage. Results The average duration of the treatment group was（ 19.6＋5.39） months; Shorter than the control group（25.7±5.76） there was a statistical difference in the month（P〈0.05）; the canine root length and height of alveolar bone changes in the experimental group were smaller than the control group,but the differences were not statistically significant（P〉0.05）; 32 cases of hard and soft profile were improved,the U1-SN,U1-X（mm）,U1-Y（mm）,A-Y（mm）,UL-Y（mm） in the experimental group after treatment were significantly lower than the control group（P〈0.05）. Conclusion Self-ligating appliance combine micro implant anchorage compared with roth straight wire appliance combined micro implant anchorage can effectively shorten the tooth extraction clearance and total course oftreatment time, increases the degree of retraction front teeth. Overbite and overjet had been changed significantly,hard and soft of profile obviously improved, and the canine root and alveolar bone had no obvious absorption, good clinical curative effect.