两种材质磁力矫治器的临床应用比较

目的 研究自凝塑料和热压膜材料两种材质制作的磁力矫治器的临床应用效果,旨在为临床应用提供参考。方法 早期反畸形患者18例,随机平均分为A组戴用自凝塑料制作的磁力矫治器,B组戴用热压膜材料为主制作的磁力矫治器。观察指标包括：（1）临床及技工操作时间比较;（2）戴用矫治器以后的主观感觉;（3）1年后矫治效果模型的简单检查;（4）1年内因矫治器本身问题的复诊率。结果 热压膜材料为主制作的磁力矫治器,临床及技工操作时间分别为（19.44 ± 6.44） min和（3.11 ± 1.27） min,小于自凝塑料制作的磁力矫治器（P 〈 0.05）。戴用矫治器后患者主观认同,热压膜材料为主制作的矫治器在舒适度与异物感、美观、对吞咽功能的影响这些方面优于A组（P 〈 0.05）。1年内,A组的矫治器发生固位问题、折裂和变形情况的机会大于热压膜材料为主制作的矫治器（P 〈 0.05）。结论 结论 热压膜磁力矫治器在患者认同感以及临床和技工操作方面均表现出明显优越性,具有很好的应用前景,同时戴用效果未有明显差异,不易发生矫治器的固位,折裂或变形等问题。临床上根据热压膜磁力矫治器的优点,建议推广使用。

Clinical comparison of two orthodontic magnetic appliances made of different retention materials

Obsjective To investigate clinical application of orthodontic magnetic appliances made with the thermoplastic material and polymethyl methacrylate plastics. Methods Eighteen anterior crossbite patient cases were selected and divided into polymethyl methacrylate plastics group（group A）and thermoplastic materials（group B）, with nine patients for each group. The two groups were observed for： （1）the fabricating time and chair time; （2）patients＇ subjective feeling of wearing the appliances; （3）treatment outcome after 1 year; and （4）emergency visit times. Results The fabricating and chair time in Group B was （19.44 ± 6.44） min and （3.11 ± 1.27） min, respectively, which was shorter than group A（P 〈 0.05）. The subjective feeling in group B was better than in group A（P 〈 0.05）. During the year of treatment, the times of emergency visiting were more in Group A（P 〈 0.05）. Conclusions The orthodontic magnetic appliance made of thermoplastics showed remarkable superiority in fabricating and clinical chair time, patient＇s subjective feeling and durability over the one made of polymethyl methacrylate plastics. It suggests to use the orthodontic magnetic appliance made of thermoplastics in clinical application.