论文部分内容阅读
目的 系统评价种植支抗与牙性支抗辅助上颌前牵疗效对比.方法 检索Cochrane Library、Madline、EMBASE、web of Science、CBM、CNKI、维普全文数据库和Google从建库至今(2016年12月)的所有文献,由2名研究员独立评价纳入研究的质量并提取资料,采用STATA12.0软件对纳入后的研究进行Meta分析.结果 纳入研究7项,共258例患者.Meta分析结果显示,种植支抗组和牙支抗组相比,SNA[WMD=0.60,95％CI(0.25,0.95),P=0.001]、Co-A[WMD=0.80,95％CI(0.23,1.37),P=0.010]、Wits值[WMD=-1.09,95 ％CI(-1.93,-0.24),P=0.010]、ANS-Me [WMD=-1.36,95％CI(-2.01,-0.71),P=0.010]变化有显著差异.结论 现有临床证据表明,对于骨性Ⅲ类错(牙合)患者,种植支抗辅助上颌前牵较牙支抗促进上颌生长效果更明显、更好的控制颌骨垂直向变化,但仍需更多高质量文章的临床研究予以验证.“,”Objective To compare the effectiveness of maxillary protraction assisted by implant anchorage versus tooth-borne anchorage.Methods Related literature were searched in Cochrane Library、Medline、EMBASE、web of Science、CBM、CNKI、VIP and Google scholar from the date of their establishment to December,2016.The quality of the relevant studies was assessed by two reviewers independently,and Meta-analysis was performed using STATA12.0 software package.Results 7 studies involving a total of 258 patients meet the inclusion criteria.The results of metaanalysis showed there were significant difference between the two methods in items of SNA[WMD=0.60,95％CI(0.25,0.95),P=0.001]、Co-A[WMD=0.80,95％CI(0.23,1.37),P=0.010]、Wits[WMD=-1.09,95％CI(-1.93,-0.24),P=0.010]、ANS-Me[WMD=-1.36,95％CI(-2.01,-0.71),P=0.010].Conclusions Current clinical evidence suggests that implant-anchored therapy induces a greater advancement of the maxilla and better vertical control in lower anterior facial height than tooth-anchored therapy in skeletal Class Ⅲ patients.The results need to be verified by more future clinical studies.