骨性Ⅱ类错牙合双期矫治与单期矫治疗效的对比  

Comparison of the Efficacy of One-phase and Two-phase Treatment on Skeletal Class Ⅱ Malocclusion

作　　者：韩丽丽 代昕[3] 侯志明 HAN Lili;DAI Xin;HOU Zhiming(Fushun Oral Disease Prevention and Treatment Institute,Fushun 113008,China;The 1st Orthodontics Department,School of Stomatology,China Medical University,Liaoning Province Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases,Department of Orthodontics,Liaoning Province Translational Medicine Research Center of Oral Diseases,Shenyang110002,China;Shenyang Heping Ailly Dental Clinic,Shenyang110002,China)

机构地区：[1]抚顺市口腔病防治院,辽宁抚顺113008 [2]中国医科大学口腔医学院正畸一科,辽宁省口腔医学研究所正畸研究室,辽宁省口腔疾病转化医学研究中心,沈阳110002 [3]沈阳和平艾莉口腔门诊,沈阳110002

出　　处：《中国医科大学学报》2018年第9期829-833,共5页Journal of China Medical University

基　　金：沈阳市科学技术计划(F14-158-9-39)。

摘　　要：目的比较骨性Ⅱ类错牙合双期矫治的治疗效果是否优于单期矫治。方法收集12例进行双期矫治的骨性Ⅱ类患者(双期组),同时选取主要指标与双期组相近的12例进行单期矫治的骨性Ⅱ类患者(单期组)。对比分析2组患者治疗前6项及治疗后44项头影测量指标的差异。结果 2组患者矫治前6项X线头影测量主要指标的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗后双期组ANB角[(2.97±0.63)°]、FMA角[(25.90±6.27)°]小于单期组[ANB角,(4.15±0.79)°;FMA角,(34.17±7.29)°],U1-NA角[(24.93±5.19)°]大于单期组[(18.78±4.50)°],差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。矫治后双期组U1-AP距[(4.70±1.29)mm]小于单期组[(6.53±2.68)mm],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论双期矫治后患者骨性远中关系、垂直骨面型、上前牙唇倾度及突度比单期矫治效果更好。Objective To compare the efficacy of one-phase and two-phase treatment on skeletal classⅡmalocclusion.Methods We enrolled 12 patients with skeletal classⅡmalocclusion who underwent two-phase treatment and 12 patients who underwent one-phase treatment;we then matched patients on the basis of important indexes.Respective cephalometric analyses,comprising 6 and 44 indexes,were performed before and after treatment.Results There was no significant difference between the two groups in the 6 indexes of X-ray cephalometric measurements before treatment.After treatment,ANB and FMA angles were significantly smaller in the two-phase treatment group than in the one-phase treatment group(ANB angle,2.97°±0.63°vs 4.15°±0.79°;FMA angle,25.90°±6.27°vs 34.17°±7.29°).The U1-NA angle was significantly larger in the two-phase treatment group than in the one-phase treatment group(24.93°±5.19°vs 18.78°±4.50°),while U1-AP distance was smaller in the two-phase treatment group than in the one-phase treatment group(4.70±1.29 vs 6.53±2.68 mm).Conclusion In patients undergoing two-phase treatment,better correction is achieved in the osseous distance relationship,facial type tends to be more average,upper incisor lip gradient degree is closer to normal,and the upper incisor exhibits ideal protrusion.

关 键 词：骨性Ⅱ类错 双期矫治 单期矫治 头影测量 

分 类 号：R78.3[医药卫生—口腔医学]