两种方法远移上颌磨牙颅颌面硬软组织变化比较  

Cranio-facial hard and soft tissue change comparison of distalizing maxillary molar by two ways

作　　者：郭军[1] 张锡忠[1] 关晓航[1] 苍松[1] 李正阳[1] 

机构地区：[1]天津市口腔医院正畸科,天津300041

出　　处：《中国美容医学》2013年第15期1626-1628,共3页Chinese Journal of Aesthetic Medicine

摘　　要：目的:研究安氏II类错患者采用微型种植体作支抗与钟摆矫治器远移上颌磨牙,两种方法对颅颌面硬软组织的影响有何不同。方法:将30例成人患者随机分成两组,分别采用两种方法远移上颌磨牙。测量上下齿槽座点到翼上颌裂平面的距离,前颅底平面与下颌平面的夹角,眶耳平面与下颌平面的夹角,上齿槽缘点到颏下点的距离,前牙覆盖的大小,上下唇凸点至美容线的距离,并进行统计学检验。结果:下齿槽座点到翼上颌裂平面的距离以及下唇凸点至美容线的距离,两种方法没有统计学差别,其他测量项目均有统计学差异。结论:两种方法均顺利地将上颌磨牙远移至合适的位置,但两者相比较,种植体的支抗更强,未对颅颌面硬软组织造成影响。Objective To study influence to craniomaxillary hard and soft tissue of micro-implant anchorage and pendulum appliance during upper molars distalling in Angle II patients. Methods 28 patients were divided into two groups randomly to distalize maxillary molar by two methods dividedly.Measuring distance from subspinale and supramental to pterygomaxillary fissure plane,from subspinale to menton,from labial superior and labial inferior to esthetic line,anterior overjet,angle of SN plane and mandibular plane. Results There were statistical differences in six measuring indexes besides two indexes （supramental to pterygomaxillary fissure plane,labial inferior to esthetic line）. Conclusion The two groups smoothly distalized upper molars to proper positions.But implant anchorage is stronger than another and no influence to craniomaxillary hard and soft tissue.

关 键 词：磨牙远移 种植体支抗 钟摆矫治器 安氏Ⅱ类错耠 

分 类 号：R783.5[医药卫生—口腔医学]