比较种植体支抗与传统方法压低上颌前牙疗效的Meta分析  

Comparison of the intrusion effects on the maxillary incisors between implants and conventional method:a Meta-analysis

作　　者：潘姗[1] 李建霞[1] 那毕 刘恒朗 范小平[1] 

机构地区：[1]重庆医科大学附属口腔医院正畸科,401147

出　　处：《重庆医学》2014年第7期788-792,共5页Chongqing medicine

基　　金：重庆市卫生局科研项目(2011-2-178);重庆市科委项目(cstc2013jcyjA10010)

摘　　要：目的比较种植体支抗与传统方法(J钩、多用途弓)压低上颌前牙的临床疗效。方法计算机检索Cochrane Library、PubMed、EMbase、维普、万方及知网等在线数据库,收集比较种植体支抗与传统方法压低上颌前牙的随机对照试验及病例对照试验,并追查纳入文献的参考文献。经筛选、资料提取和质量评价后,采用RevMan5.1软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入11个研究文献,其中关于种植体与J钩比较的文献有6篇,154例患者;关于种植体与多用途弓比较的文献有5篇,127例患者。Meta分析结果显示,(1)与J钩组相比,种植体组U1-PP距变化量较多(P<0.001),覆变化量较多(P=0.001),治疗时间较短(P<0.001),SN-OP角增大量较少(P=0.004),U6-PP距变化量较少(P=0.020);两组的覆盖变化量、牙根吸收量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(2)与多用途弓组相比,种植体组U1-PP距变化量较多(P=0.010),U6-PP角增大量较少(P<0.001);两组的U1-PP距、U1-PP角、U6-PP距、U6水平向移动距离、覆、覆盖、疗程、牙根吸收量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论种植体与抗压低上颌前牙疗效优于传统方法(J钩、多用途弓),压低前牙量多、时间短、患者较舒适,两者牙根吸收量相当。Objective To objectively evaluate the intrusion effects on the maxillary incisors of implants versus conventional method（J-hook headgear,utility arch）. Methods Such online databases as Cochrane library, PubMed, EMbase, VIP, Wanfang and CNKI were searched by randomized control test and prospective case controlled study about implants vs conventional anchorage for the maxillary incisor intrusion. After study selection, assessment and data extraction conducted, meta analyses were performed by u sing the RevMan 5.1 software. Results Totally 11 studies were included,6 studies involving 154 patients were included in the J hook headgear group,5 studies involving 127 patients were included in the utility arch group. The results of meta-analyses showed that ： （ 1 ） Compared with the J-hook headgear, implants had more decrement in the distance of upper center incisior cutting to palatal plane（P〈0. 001 ） ,more decrement in overbite（P=0. 001） ,shorter treatment time （P〈0. 001） ,less increase in SN-OP angle（P= 0. 004） ,less decrement in distance of maxillary molar cusp to palatal plane （P=0. 020） ;There was no statistically significant differ- ence in overjet,root resorption（P〈0.05）. （2）Compared with the utility arch,implants had more decrement in the distance of the center of resistance of the upper incisor to palatal plane（P=0. 010） ,less increase in U6 PP angle （P〈0. 001） ;There was no statis tically significant difference in the distance of upper center incisior cutting to palatal plane,U1- PP angle, the distance of upper first Molar cutting to palatal plane, sagittal position of the mesial tip of the upper first Molar, overbite,overjet, course of treatment, root resorption（P〉0.05）. Conclusion The implants anchorage intruded the maxillary incisor was better than conventional method （J hook headgear,utility arch）, it has more incisor intrusion ,shorter treatment time and more comfortable for the patients,there was no difference in root resorption between the t

关 键 词：牙种植体 随机对照试验 病例对照研究 META分析 

分 类 号：R783.5[医药卫生—口腔医学]