微型种植体支抗与传统正畸方法在口腔正畸治疗中的效果  

Effects of Mini-implant Anchorage and Traditional Orthodontic Methods on Orthodontic Treatment

作　　者：孟芳[1] MENG Fang(Department of Stomatology,the First Affiliated Hospital of Baotou Medical College,Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology,Baotou,Inner Mongolia,014010 China)

机构地区：[1]内蒙古科技大学包头医学院第一附属医院口腔科,内蒙古包头014010

出　　处：《中外医疗》2020年第20期56-58,共3页China & Foreign Medical Treatment

摘　　要：目的观察对比微型种植体支抗与传统正畸方法在口腔正畸治疗中的效果。方法在2018年1—12月该院收治的行口腔正畸治疗的患者中便利选取58例,随机分两组:一组采用微型种植体支抗治疗,纳入微型组(29例);一组采用传统正畸方法治疗,纳入传统组(29例);对两组治疗后的X线投影情况、咀嚼功能、牙龈情况及不良反应进行观察与比较。结果微型组的磨牙移位为(3.25±0.70)mm、上中切牙凸距差为(3.84±1.33)mm、上中切牙倾角差为(26.59±7.37)°;传统组的磨牙移位为(5.58±1.50)mm、上中切牙凸距差为(2.48±0.92)mm、上中切牙倾角差为(12.77±6.54)°;微型组的X线投影指标均显著优于传统组(t=8.013、9.522、8.101,P<0.05)。微型组的咬合力为(155.52±23.47)lbs、咀嚼效率为(0.92±0.15)%;传统组的咬合力为(108.04±25.11)lbs、咀嚼效率为(0.73±0.12)%;微型组的咀嚼功能指标均显著优于传统组(t=5.205、4.927,P<0.05)。微型组的GI为(0.87±0.18)、SBI为(1.08±0.52)、PLI为(1.09±0.35);传统组的GI为(0.99±0.22)、SBI为(1.40±0.25)、PLI为(1.36±0.28);微型组的牙龈情况指标均显著优于传统组(t=5.053、4.498、4.916,P<0.05)。微型组的不良反应发生率为10.34%,传统组的不良反应发生率为27.59%,微型组的不良反应发生率显著低于传统组(χ2=5.272,P<0.05)。结论在口腔正畸治疗中采用微型种植体支抗比采用传统正畸方法的效果更好、不良反应更少。Objective To observe and compare the effects of micro-implant anchorage and traditional orthodontic methods in orthodontic treatment.Methods From Jan to Dec 2018,58 patients convenient selected for orthodontic treatment in the hospital were randomly divided into 2 groups:one group was treated with micro-implant anchorage and included in the mini group(29 cases);one group was treated with traditional orthodontics methods in the traditional group(29 cases);the X-ray projection,chewing function,gum condition and adverse reactions of the two groups after treatment were observed and compared.Results The molar displacement of the micro group was(3.25±0.70)mm,the difference between the convex distance of the upper and central incisors was(3.84±1.33)mm,and the difference of the tilt angle of the upper and central incisors was(26.59±7.37)°;The grinding teeth of the traditional group were shifted to(5.58±1.50)mm,the difference between the convex distance of the upper central incisor was(2.48±0.92)mm,and the difference of the tilt angle of the upper central incisor was(12.77±6.54)°;the X-ray projection indicators of the micro group are significantly better than the traditional group(t=8.013,9.522,8.101,P<0.05).The bite force of the mini group was(155.52±23.47)lbs and the chewing efficiency was(0.92±0.15)%;the bite force of the traditional group was(108.04±25.11)lbs and the chewing efficiency was(0.73±0.12)%;the chew functional indicators of the mini group were significantly better than the traditional group(t=5.205,4.927,P<0.05).The GI of the mini group was(0.87±0.18),the SBI was(1.08±0.52),and the PLI was(1.09±0.35);the GI of the traditional group was(0.99±0.22),the SBI was(1.40±0.25),and the PLI was(1.36±0.28);the gingival condition indicators of the mini group were significant better than the traditional group(t=5.053,4.498,4.916,P<0.05).The incidence of adverse reactions in the micro group was 10.34%,and the incidence of adverse reactions in the traditional group was 27.59%.The incidence of adverse rea

关 键 词：微型种植体支抗 口腔正畸 治疗效果 

分 类 号：R783[医药卫生—口腔医学]