微种植体支抗在Angle氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合畸形矫正中的应用研究

Application of Orthodontic Micro-implant Anchorage in the Correction of Angle’s Class Ⅱ Division 1 Malocclusion

目的:探讨微种植体支抗对Angle氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合畸形患者的矫正效果。方法:选取2015年8月-2020年8月在笔者医院就诊的60例Angle氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合畸形患者为研究对象。其中30例使用微种植体支抗(种植支抗组),30例使用传统支抗(传统支抗组),矫治前后头影测量分析对比疗效。结果:种植支抗组平均(17.50±1.56)个月完成矫治,传统支抗组平均(19.25±2.37)个月完成矫治,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后,两组患者的Ptm-U6均增加(P<0.05),Ptm-U1、U1-SN均降低(P<0.05);治疗后,种植支抗组的Ptm-A、SNA较治疗前显著降低(P<0.05),而传统支抗组治疗前后的Ptm-A、SNA变化无统计学意义(P>0.05)。Ptm-U1、U1-SN减少量:种植支抗组>传统支抗组(P<0.05);Ptm-U6增加量:种植支抗组<传统支抗组(P<0.05)。结论:微种植体支抗作用强且比传统支抗稳定可靠,可有效矫正安氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合畸形,改善患者面型,值得在临床推广应用。

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the correction effect of orthodontic micro-implant anchorage on Angle’s Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion. Methods Sixty patients with Angle’s Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion treated in the hospital between August 2015 and August 2020 were selected. The patients were divided into implant anchorage group(30patients treated with micro-implant anchorage) and traditional anchorage group(30 patients treated with traditional anchorage)by random number table method. Cephalometric measurements were compared before and after orthodontic treatment.Results The duration of correction in implant anchorage group was(17.50±1.56) months, shorter than(19.25±2.37) months of traditional anchorage group(P<0.05). After treatment, Ptm-U6 increased(P<0.05), while Ptm-U1 and U1-SN decreased in the two groups(P<0.05). The Ptm-A and SNA in implant anchorage group after treatment were significantly lower than those before treatment(P<0.05). The was no statistically significant difference between traditional anchorage group and implant anchorage group in the changes of Ptm-A and SNA before and after treatment(P>0.05). The decreases in Ptm-U1 and U1-SN were greater in implant anchorage group than in traditional anchorage group(P<0.05), and the increase in Ptm-U6 was smaller in implant anchorage group than in traditional anchorage group(P<0.05). Conclusion The orthodontic micro-implant anchorage has a stronger anchorage effect, and is more stable and reliable than traditional anchorage. It is effective in correcting Angle’s class II division 1 malocclusion, and can improve the patient’s facial shape.