摘要
目的:比较Frog磨牙远移器和经典Cetlin推磨牙向后两种方法治疗安氏Ⅱ类牙源性错畸形的临床疗效。方法:对30例安氏Ⅱ类错伴上颌牙列轻中度拥挤的病例,采用Frog磨牙远移器和Cetlin推磨牙向后各15例,结合X线头影测量,评价两种方法的治疗效果。结果:①治疗前后两组平面OP-SN(o)的变化:Frog矫治器组减少0.38o,Cetlin矫治器组增加1.76o(P<0.01);②切牙突度U1-NA(mm)的变化:Cetlin矫治器组、Frog矫治器组分别增加2.16mm、0.94mm(P<0.05);③切牙距腭平面垂直高度U1-PP(mm)的变化:Cetlin矫治器组、Frog矫治器组分别为0.47mm、-0.7mm(P<0.01)。结论:Cetlin推磨牙向后法和Frog磨牙远移器在支抗控制方面均较好,远移磨牙的形式接近于整体移动。对前牙覆合浅的患者,Cetlin推磨牙向后法将更为有效;Frog磨牙远移器较为舒适,不依赖患者配合,是一种新的有效远移磨牙的矫治器。
Objective：To comparative the clinical efficacy of Frog Molar Distalization Appliance and Cetlin＇s Appliance on Angle classⅡmalocclusion treatment.Methods：30cases of Angle classⅡmalocclusion whose maxillary dentitions were mild or moderate crowded were treated with Frog Molar Distalization Appliance and Cetlin＇s appliance to achieve non-extraction treatment respectively.Cephalometric radiographs were taken and analyzed before and after the treatment.SPSS 13.0software package was used for paired-samples t test.Results：The variations of OP-SN（o）and U1-PP（mm）were with significant differences（P〈0.01）.The variation of U1-NA（mm）was with significant difference（P〈0.05）between Frog Molar Distalization Appliance group and Cetlin＇s Appliance group.Conclusion：Frog Molar Distalization Appliance and Cetlin＇s Appliance are both the good methods of nonextraction treatment to correct Angle classⅡ malocclusion with maxillary dentition mild or moderate crowded.Frog Molar Distalization Appliance is not impacted by patient compliance and more comfortable.Cetlin＇s Appliance is more effective with shallow overbite patients.
出处
《陕西医学杂志》
CAS
2014年第6期683-685,共3页
Shaanxi Medical Journal
关键词
错牙合
安氏Ⅱ类正畸学
矫正正畸矫正器
Malocclusion
angle class Ⅱ Orthodontics
corrective Orthodontic appliances
