不同错■类型患者上前牙区牙槽骨厚度比较

Comparison on alveolar bone thickness of upper anterior teeth in patients with different malocclusion types

目的比较不同错[牙合]类型患者上前牙区牙槽骨厚度。方法选取2015年7月至2017年7月在郑州大学第一附属医院就诊的111例患者的锥形束计算机体层摄影(CBCT)重建资料,根据安氏分类将其分安氏Ⅰ类组(44例)、安氏Ⅱ类组(44例)、安氏Ⅲ类组(23例),使用Invivo 5.2测量上颌前牙唇腭侧的牙槽骨厚度(右上颌中切牙唇、腭侧牙槽骨厚度分别为U1L、U1P,右上颌侧切牙唇、腭侧牙槽骨厚度分别为U2L、U2P,右上颌尖牙唇、腭侧牙槽骨厚度分别为U3L、U3P,右上颌中切牙阻抗中心唇、腭侧牙槽骨厚度分别为U1Lr、U1Pr,右上颌侧切牙阻抗中心唇、腭侧牙槽骨厚度分别为U2Lr、U2Pr,右上颌尖牙阻抗中心唇、腭侧牙槽骨厚度分别为U3Lr、U3Pr),并进行统计学分析。结果安氏Ⅲ类组U1L厚于安氏Ⅱ类组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);安氏Ⅲ类U1Pr厚于安氏Ⅱ类组和安氏Ⅰ类组,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05);安氏Ⅲ类组U2L、U3L均厚于安氏Ⅱ类组,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05);安氏Ⅲ类组、Ⅱ类组U3Lr均厚于安氏Ⅰ类组,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论安氏Ⅲ类错[牙合]进行正畸治疗时,上颌前牙区唇腭向的移动范围可比安氏Ⅰ类错[牙合]与安氏Ⅱ类错[牙合]更大。

Objective To compare the salveolar bone thickness of upper anterior teeth in patients with different malocclusion types. Methods Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) reconstruction data of 111 patients in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from July 2015 to July 2017 were selected. They were classified into Angle’s class Ⅰ group (44 cases), Angle’s class Ⅱ group (44 cases) and Angle’s class Ⅲ group (23 cases) according to Angle’s classification. Invivo 5.2 was used to measure the alveolar bone thickness on the labial and palatal sides of maxillary anterior teeth (the thicknesses of labial and palatal alveolar bone of right maxillary central incisor were U1L and U1P, respectively;the thicknesses of labial and palatal alveolar bone of right maxillary lateral incisor were U2L and U2P, respectively;the thicknesses of labial and palatal alveolar bone of right maxillary canine were U3L and U3P, respectively;the thicknesses of impedance center lip and palatal alveolar bone of right maxillary central incisor were U1Lr and U1Pr, respectively;the thicknesses of impedance center lip and palatal alveolar bone of right maxillary lateral incisor were U2Lr and U2Pr, respectively;the thicknesses of impedance center lip and palatal alveolar bone of right maxillary canine were U3Lr and U3Pr, respectively). Results The U1L in Angle’s class Ⅲ group was thicker than than in Angle’s class Ⅱ group, and the difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.05). The U1Pr in Angle’s class Ⅲ group was thicker than that in Angle’s class Ⅱ group and Angle’s class Ⅰ group, and the differences were statistically significant (both P < 0.05). The U2L and U3L in Angle’s class Ⅲ group were both thicker than those in Angle’s class Ⅱ group, and the differences were statistically significant (both P < 0.05). The U3Lrs in Angle’s class Ⅲ group and Angle’s class Ⅱ group were thicker than that in Angle’s class Ⅰ group, and the differences were statistically significant (both P < 0.05). Conclusion In the orthodontic treatment of Angle’s class Ⅲ malocclusion, the range of labial and palatal movement in maxillary anterior teeth is bigger than that of Angle’s class Ⅱmalocclusion and Angle’s class Ⅰ malocclusion.