论文部分内容阅读
目的 :比较种植体支抗与传统口内支抗矫治上颌前突的效果。方法 :选择上颌需要拔除双侧第一前磨牙且需强支抗的上颌前突患者30例,随机分为种植体支抗组15例,传统口内支抗组15例。分别于治疗前(T1)和治疗后(T2)制取寄存模型、拍摄头颅侧位片。通过三维模型测量对比牙的移动效果,通过头影测量比较颌骨及软组织的改变。采用SPSS 17.0软件包进行统计学分析。结果:1种植体支抗组上中切牙内收(6.661±1.328)mm,压低(0.129±1.815)mm;传统口内支抗组上中切牙内收(5.788±2.009)mm,伸长(2.623±1.776)mm。矢状向位移无显著差异(P>0.05),垂直向位移有显著差异(P<0.05)。2种植体支抗组上颌第一磨牙前移(0.608±1.045)mm,压低(0.720±0.805)mm,腭向移动(0.477±0.904)mm;传统口内支抗组上颌第一磨牙前移(1.503±0.945)mm,伸长(0.072±0.690)mm,腭向移动(0.883±0.752)mm。矢状向及垂直向位移均有显著差异(P<0.05),横向位移无显著差异(P>0.05)。32组之间颌骨及软组织指标的改变无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论:对于上颌前突患者,种植体支抗在上颌切牙的垂直向控制及支抗磨牙的矢状向、垂直向控制上优于传统口内支抗。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of implant support and orthopedic support on maxillary protrusion. Methods: Thirty patients with maxillary protrusion who needed maxillary protraction and maxillary support were selected. They were randomly divided into implant support group (n = 15) and traditional oral support group (n = 15). Before the treatment (T1) and after treatment (T2) Preparation of storage model, filming the cephalometric slices. The effect of tooth movement was measured by three-dimensional model and the jaw and soft tissue changes were compared by cephalometric measurements. SPSS 17.0 software package for statistical analysis. Results: The maxillary incisors in one implant group were (6.661 ± 1.328) mm lower and (0.129 ± 1.815) mm in size, while those in the traditional IUP group were 5.788 ± 2.009 mm in length, 2.623 ± 1.776) mm. There was no significant difference in sagittal displacement (P> 0.05) and vertical displacement (P <0.05). The maxillary first molar moved forward (0.608 ± 1.045) mm, down (0.720 ± 0.805) mm and moved to the palatal (0.477 ± 0.904) mm in the 2 implant anchorage groups. The maxillary first molars moved forward (1.503 ± 0.945) mm, elongation (0.072 ± 0.690) mm, and palatal movement (0.883 ± 0.752) mm. Sagittal and vertical displacement were significantly different (P <0.05), lateral displacement was no significant difference (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference in the changes of mandibular and soft tissue between the 32 groups (P> 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For maxillary protrusion, implant support is superior to traditional IKO in vertical control of the maxillary incisors and sagittal and vertical control of the supporting molars.