摆式矫治器与口外弓远中移动磨牙的疗效比较

目的:比较摆式矫治器与口外弓头帽牵引2种方法推磨牙远中移动的临床疗效。方法:选取牙源性安氏II类错牙合30例,按照配对实验设计的原理分为2组,分别使用摆式矫治器(P组)和口外弓头帽牵引(F组)进行不拔牙矫治。矫治前后拍摄头颅侧位片,采用Pancherz分析法进行X线头影测量分析,比较2组患者治疗前后牙颌结构的变化。采用SPSS11.0统计学软件进行配对t检验,α取0.05。结果:推磨牙远中移动的治疗时间:P组为(20.6±4.0)周,F组为(26.0±3.6)周,两者具有显著性差异P<0.01;矫治前后,P组磨牙远中移动为(-3.1±0.53)mm,F组为(-2.2±0.82)mm,两者具有显著性差异P<0.01。矫治前后,P组上颌切牙唇向移位(0.8±0.78)mm,F组上颌切牙腭向移位(-1.0±0.88)mm,两者具有显著性差异P<0.01。结论:摆式矫治器能更快速、有效地推动上颌磨牙远中移动,但需要加强对上颌前牙的支抗控制。

Comparison of the treatment effects of two molar distal movement appliances: pendulum appliance and face-bow

PURPOSE: To compare the treatment effects of pendulum appliance and traditional face-bow for distal movement of maxillary first molars. METHODS: Samples (n=30) were randomly divided into two groups, of which Group P was treated with pendulum appliance, while Group F with traditional face-bow. Cephalometric radiographs were taken and analyzed by Pancherz at the pre-treatment time (T1) and the post-treatment time (T2). Student's t test was used to determine if there were significant differences between the 2 time periods and two groups. RESULTS: There was significant difference between Group P and Group F in the treatment duration (20.6+/-4.0 weeks vs 26.0+/-3.6 weeks). There was also significant difference in the changes of (ms/olp- ss/olp) (3.1+/-0.53 mm vs 2.2+/-0.82 mm), (is/olp- ss/olp) (0.8+/-0.78 mm vs-1.0+/-0.88 mm) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that pendulum appliance is clinically more effective and rapid for distal movement of the maxillary first molars, but more attention should be paid to the anchorage control of maxillary anterior teeth.