两种方法腭向移动上颌第二磨牙效果比较  

Comparison of palatal movement of maxillary second molar with two methods

作　　者：郭军[1] 杨永进[1] 闫欣[1] 

机构地区：[1]第二炮兵总医院口腔科,北京100088

出　　处：《中国美容医学》2011年第5期824-826,共3页Chinese Journal of Aesthetic Medicine

摘　　要：目的:研究安氏Ⅰ类错患者中,分别采用微型种植体作支抗与口内支抗腭向移动上颌第二磨牙进行比较,以评价两种方法各自的特点。方法:将20例成人患者随机分成两组,分别采用两种方法腭向移动上颌磨牙。测量上颌第二磨牙在移动速度和颊舌向、垂直方向的位置变化,以衡量磨牙的位置改变。结果:种植体作支抗组上颌第二磨牙平均腭向移动3.8mm,疗程4.4个月,平均移动速度0.86mm/月,磨牙垂直向压低0.45mm。对照组上颌第二磨牙平均腭向移动4.0mm,疗程6.2个月,平均移动速度0.65mm/月,磨牙垂直向伸长1.86mm。结论:两种方法比较,种植体的支抗更强,磨牙移动速度更快。二者磨牙的移动方式有所区别。Objective To evaluate characters of micro-implant anchorage and intraoral anchorage during maxillary second molars mesialization in Class I malocclusal patients. Methods 24 patients were divided into two groups equally.Measuring movement speed and position changes of maxillary second molars from buccopalata and vertical position. Results In implant anchorage group：the velocity of maxillary second molar was 0.86 mm per month,palatal movement 3.8mm,intrusive movement 0.45mm.ln intraoral anchorage group： the velocity of maxillary second molar was 0.65 mm per month,palatal movement 4.0 mm,extrusive movement 1.86 mm. Conclusion Two methods successfully palatalize maxillary molars to appropriate positions. But implant anchorage is stronger and faster than another.Then move mode of maxillary molar differenciate from each other.

关 键 词：磨牙腭向移动 种植体支抗 口内支抗 安氏I类错 

分 类 号：R783.5[医药卫生—口腔医学]