摘要
目的:探讨铸造夹板式Herbst矫治器和Twin-bolck矫治器矫治Angle Ⅱ2类错的机制和效果。方法:随机选取30例骨龄为FG-G期恒牙列Angle Ⅱ2类错患者,随机分为治疗组(Herbst矫治器组)和对照组(Twin-block矫治器组),其中治疗组15例,采用铸造夹板式Herbst矫治器矫治:对照组15例,采用Twin-blokc矫治器治疗。治疗组和对照组的所有患者均在治疗前、后拍摄头颅定位侧位片,进行矫治前后、颌、面矢状向和垂直向上的头影测量分析,并做统计学处理。结果:两组患者均达到了磨牙中性关系,前牙达到正常的覆盖、覆关系,但是治疗组的疗程明显的短于对照组。结论:Herbst矫治器和Twin-block矫治器均能有效地矫治Angle Ⅱ2类错;但前者在刺激下颌骨生长、促进下颌骨前移等骨性变化以及在患者面型的改善方面明显的优于后者。
Objective：To assess the effect and mechanism of skeletal Class H ,Division 2 malocclusiom treatment with cast splint Herbst appliance and Twin-block appliance.Methods：30 Class Ⅱ, Division 2 malocclusions patients aged 11.3 to 14 years in permanent dentltion before adolescent growth spurt were classified into two groups. The Herbst group （9 males,6 females） was treated with cast splint hethst appliance, the control group （ 10 males,5 females） treated by Twln-block appliance. Both groups were corrected with non- extraction therapy. Analysis the lateral eephalometics radiographs of the two groups at pre-treatment and posttreaunent according to the method of Paneherz. t-test was used in data analysis of two groups, by SPSS 11.5 software. Results：Both group patients were treated to Class I molar and normal overjet and overbite relationslfips at posttreaunent. Conclusion：Both herbst appliance and twin-block appliance could treat effectively angle class Ⅱ, Division 2 malocclusions,but the effects of skeletul changes of Herbst appliance is better than that of Twin-block appliance.
出处
《医学影像学杂志》
2007年第10期1099-1101,共3页
Journal of Medical Imaging
