论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较改良蛙式矫治器与摆式矫治器远中移动上颌磨牙的临床疗效。方法:将20例需远中移动上颌磨牙病例分成两组,改良蛙式矫治器组8例,摆式矫治器组12例。对矫治前及磨牙移动至中性关系后的头颅定位侧位片进行测量,并通过成组设计的t检验分析两组牙颌面形态变化的差异。结果:①改良蛙式矫治器组与摆式矫治器组在上颌第一磨牙远中移动距离、远中倾斜程度、矫治时间及速率上无明显统计学差异(P>0.05)。②改良蛙式矫治器组上颌第二前磨牙远中移动1.83±1.21 mm,远中倾斜7.50°±7.07°。摆式矫治器组上颌第二前磨牙近中移动1.79±2.44 mm,近中倾斜4.33°±3.73°。两组间有明显统计学差异(P<0.01)。③改良蛙式矫治器组上颌中切牙近中移动0.17±0.52 mm,远中倾斜0.58°±1.74°。摆式矫治器组上颌中切牙近中移动2.96±2.46 mm,近中倾斜7.08°±7.48°。两组间有明显统计学差异(P<0.05)。结论:改良蛙式矫治器能不依赖患者配合,有效地远中移动上颌磨牙,并且相比较摆式矫治器能有效地减少前牙支抗丧失,适用于安氏Ⅱ类错牙合畸形的矫治。
Objective: To compare the clinical effects of improved frog appliance and swing appliance in distal maxillary molars. Methods: Twenty cases of maxillary molars requiring distal movement were divided into two groups. Eight cases were treated with frog appliance and 12 cases with tiller appliance. The craniofacial lateral radiographs before and after the molars moved to the neutral relationship were measured. The t-test of group design was used to analyze the differences of the facial and maxillofacial morphology. Results: (1) There was no significant difference between the improved frog appliance group and the tilting appliance group in the distance of distal maxillary first molars, the degree of distal middling, the time and rate of correction, and there was no significant difference (P> 0.05). ② In the improved frog appliance group, the maxillary second premolar moved 1.83 ± 1.21 mm in the distance and 7.50 ° ± 7.07 ° in the far middle. The maxillary second premolar moved proximally by 1.79 ± 2.44 mm and tilted nearly 4.33 ° ± 3.73 °. There was a significant difference between the two groups (P <0.01). ③ improved frog appliance group maxillary central incisors move 0.17 ± 0.52 mm, 0.58 ° ± 1.74 ° distal tilt. The maxillary central incisor moved proximally by 2.96 ± 2.46 mm in the pendulum appliance group, with a pitch of 7.08 ° ± 7.48 °. There was a significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05). Conclusion: The improved frog appliance can effectively remove the maxillary molars without depending on the patients, and can reduce the support loss of the anterior teeth effectively compared with the swing appliance. It is suitable for the treatment of Class Ⅱ malocclusion.