上颌牙列拥挤患者治疗中传统托槽与自锁托槽矫治对牙弓形态的影响分析

Analysis on the Influence of Traditional Brackets and Self-ligating Brackets on the Shape of Dental Arch for Crowded Patients with Maxillary Dentition

目的:研究上颌牙列拥挤患者治疗中传统托槽与自锁托槽矫治对牙弓形态的影响。方法:选取2016年2月至2017年8月共82例上颌牙列拥挤的患者,按治疗方法不同将所有患者分为对照组(n=36例)和研究组(n=46例)。其中对照组患者采用传统托槽治疗,研究组患者采用自锁托槽治疗。对比两组患者上下牙弓周长,上下颌牙弓长度指标:上牙弓全段,上牙弓前段,上牙弓中段,下牙弓全段,下牙弓前段,下牙弓中段等,上颌牙弓宽度指标:第一磨牙中央窝、第一磨牙颊尖、第二前磨牙中央窝、第二前磨牙颊尖、第一前磨牙中央窝、第一前磨牙颊尖和尖牙。结果:两组患者治疗前上、下牙弓周长无明显差异(P>0.05),两组患者治疗后上下牙弓周长均明显高于各自治疗前(P<0.05),有统计学差异;但两组间比较,无显著性差异(P>0.05)。两组患者治疗前上牙弓全段、前段、中段、下牙弓全段、前段和中段等指标对比均无统计学差异(P>0.05),治疗后各指标均明显高于各自治疗前,有统计学差异(P<0.05);但两组间比较,无统计学差异(P>0.05)。两组患者治疗前第一磨牙中央窝、第一磨牙颊尖、第二前磨牙中央窝、第二前磨牙颊尖、第一前磨牙中央窝、第一前磨牙颊尖和尖牙等上颌牙弓宽度指标对比均无统计学差异(P>0.05),但两组患者治疗后尖牙与各自治疗前对比均无统计学差异(P>0.05);且两组患者治疗后各指标对比均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:传统托槽与自锁托槽对牙弓周长、牙弓长度、牙弓宽度改变无明显差异。两种矫治方法均可增加牙弓周长、牙弓长度和牙弓宽度,尤其可明显增加牙弓前段和前磨牙区宽度。因此,在扩大牙弓方面,自锁托槽与传统直丝托槽相比无明显优势。

Objective:To study the effect of traditional bracket and self-ligating bracket on the shape of dental arch in the treatment of crowded patients with maxillary dentition.Methods:A total of 82 patients with maxillary dentition admitted to our hospital from Feb.2016 to Aug.2017 were enrolled.All patients were divided into control group(n=36 cases)and study group(n=46).example).The patients in the control group were treated with traditional brackets,and the patients in the study group were treated with self-locking brackets.Comparing the upper and lower arch circumferences of the two groups of patients,the maxillary arch length index:the upper segment of the upper arch,the anterior segment of the upper arch,the middle segment of the upper arch,the entire segment of the lower arch,the anterior segment of the lower arch,the middle segment of the lower arch,etc.The maxillary arch width index:the first molar central fossa,the first molar cheek tip,the second premolar fovea,the second premolar cheek tip,the first premolar fovea,the first premolar cheek tip and the canine.Results:There was no significant difference in the circumference of the upper and lower arches between the two groups(P>0.05).The circumference of the upper and lower arches of the two groups were significantly higher than those before treatment(P<0.05),but there were statistical differences.There was no significant difference between the groups(P>0.05).There were no significant differences in the indexes of the upper segment,the anterior segment,the middle segment,the lower segment of the lower arch,the anterior segment and the middle segment between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05).After treatment,each index was significantly higher than before treatment.There was a statistical difference(P<0.05);however,there was no statistical difference between the two groups(P>0.05).The two groups of patients before treatment,the first molar central fossa,the first molar cheek tip,the second premolar fovea,the second premolar cheek tip,the first premolar fovea,the first premolar cheek tip and the canine and other maxillary teeth There was no significant difference in bow width index(P>0.05),but there was no significant difference between the two groups in the treatment of canines before treatment(P>0.05).There was no comparison between the two groups after treatment.Statistical difference(P>0.05).Conclusion:There is no significant difference between the traditional bracket and the self-locking bracket on the circumference of the arch,the length of the arch and the width of the arch.Both treatment methods can increase the circumference of the arch,the length of the arch and the width of the arch,especially the width of the anterior and premolar regions.Therefore,in terms of expanding the dental arch,the self-locking bracket has no obvious advantage compared with the conventional straight wire bracket.