机构地区:[1]湖南中医药大学口腔医(学)院,湖南长沙410208 [2]长沙市口腔医院正畸科,湖南长沙410004
出 处:《口腔疾病防治》2024年第6期428-435,共8页Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases
基 金:湖南省自然科学基金项目(2019JJ80055);长沙市自然科学基金项目(kq2208484);长沙市卫生健康委员会科研计划项目(KJ⁃A2023014);湖南中医药大学校院联合基金项目(2022XYLH128);湖南中医药大学研究生创新课题(2022CX205)。
摘 要:目的分析上后牙区植入微种植钉支抗对露龈笑患者唇齿软硬组织的改善效果,为临床提供参考。方法本研究已通过单位伦理委员会审查批准,并获得患者知情同意。对使用上颌后牙区高位植入微种植钉治疗前突伴露龈笑的年轻女性患者30例进行回顾性研究,其中种植钉植入于上颌第一、二前磨牙根间的患者18例(A组),种植钉位于上颌第二前磨牙与第一磨牙根间且术中配合使用摇椅弓患者12例(B组),治疗前、后分别拍摄头颅侧位片并测量两组术前、术后上中切牙切端至上唇下点距离(U1⁃Stms)、上中切牙切端至腭平面垂直距离(U1⁃PP)、牙槽缘点至腭平面垂直距离(Spr⁃PP)、上中切牙切端至牙槽缘点距离(U1⁃Spr)、上颌第一磨牙近中颊尖点至腭平面垂直距离(U6⁃PP)等相关指标,拍摄微笑照片测量微笑时上前牙区软硬组织暴露量及最大露龈量。结果两组患者矫治后唇齿关系均明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),A组U1⁃Stms平均减小2.6 mm,U1⁃PP平均减小2.4 mm,Spr⁃PP平均减小1.4 mm,U1⁃Spr平均减小0.9 mm;B组U1⁃Stms平均减小2.3 mm,U1⁃PP平均减小1.6 mm,Spr⁃PP平均减小1.4 mm,U1⁃Spr平均减小0.2 mm;两组治疗前后U6⁃PP差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。A组ΔU1⁃PP、ΔU1⁃Spr大于B组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组ΔU1⁃Stms、ΔSpr⁃PP差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者术后微笑时上前牙区软硬组织暴露量、最大露龈量均减小,A组治疗后上前牙区软硬组织暴露量平均降低至治疗前的70.19%,最大露龈量平均减少至治疗前的24.12%,B组治疗后上前牙区软硬组织暴露量平均降低至术前的76.12%,最大露龈量平均减少至治疗前的31.88%。两组之间的比值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对于前突伴露龈笑患者,微种植钉植入于上颌前磨牙根间可有效压低内收前牙改善唇齿关系,从而减少微笑露龈量,微种植钉植入�Objective To analyze the ability of micro⁃implant nails placed in different locations in the posterior re⁃gion to improve the hard and soft tissues of the labiodental region in patients with gummy smiles to provide a reference for clinicians.Methods This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee,and informed consent was ob⁃tained from the patients.Thirty young female patients with anterior tooth protrusions and gummy smiles were included in the retrospective study;18 patients had micro⁃implant nails implanted between the premolars(group A),and 12 pa⁃tients had implant nails placed between the roots of the premolar and the molar and an intraoperatively placed rocking⁃chair archwire (group B). The preoperative and postoperative distances from the incisal end of the upper mesial incisorsto the lower point of the upper lip (U1⁃Stms), the vertical distance from the incisal end of the upper mesial incisors tothe palatal plane (U1⁃PP), the vertical distance from the point of the alveolar ridge to the palatal plane (Spr⁃PP), the dis⁃tance from the incisal end of the upper mesial incisors to the point of the alveolar margin (U1⁃Spr), and the vertical dis⁃tance from the point of the proximal middle buccal cusp of the maxillary first molar to the palatal plane of the maxillaryfirst molar (U6⁃PP) were measured in the cephalometric lateral radiographs of the two groups;additionally, the amountof hard and soft tissues of the upper anterior region exposedduring smiling and the maximum amount of gingiva exposedduring smiling were assessed from the smile photograph. Results After correction, the lip⁃dentition relationship im⁃proved significantly in both groups, with an average reduction of 2.6 mm in U1⁃Stms, 2.4 mm in U1⁃PP, 1.4 mm in Spr⁃PP,and 0.9 mm in U1⁃Spr in Group A. In group B, the U1⁃Stms was reduced by an average of 2.3 mm, the U1⁃PPs by anaverage of 1.6 mm, the Spr⁃PPs by 1.4 mm, and the U1⁃Spr by 0.2 mm. The difference between pre⁃ and postoperativeU6⁃PP
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...