Twin-block功能矫治器与肌激动器对安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩的矫治效果对比  

Comparison on the Orthodontic Effects of Twin-block Functional Orthodontic Appliance and Muscle Activator on ClassⅡMandibular Retrognathia

作　　者：杨宇虹 张静[1] 孙留振[1] 刘耀冉 姜龙龙 YANG Yuhong;ZHANG Jing;SUN Liuzhen;LIU Yaoran;JIANG Longlong(Orthodontics Department,Anyang Sixth People's Hospital,Anyang 455000,China)

机构地区：[1]安阳市第六人民医院正畸科,河南安阳455000

出　　处：《临床医学工程》2025年第3期279-282,共4页Clinical Medicine & Engineering

基　　金：2023年安阳市重点研发与推广专项(项目编号:2023C01SF023)。

摘　　要：目的 对比分析Twin-block功能矫治器与肌激动器在安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩患者矫治中的应用效果。方法 回顾性分析2020年1月至2024年1月我院收治的80例安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩患者的临床资料,将采用Twin-block功能矫治器矫治的40例患者设为Twin-block组,采用肌激动器矫治的40例患者设为肌激组。比较两组的矫治效果以及矫治8个月后的上气道矢状径[硬腭平面上气道矢状径(AP-hp)、软腭尖平面上气道矢状径(AP-sp)、会厌尖平面上气道矢状径(AP-te)]和舌骨位置[舌骨点至后鼻棘点距离(H-PNS)、舌骨点至锥前平面距离(H-CVP)、舌骨点至下颌平面距离(H-MP)、舌骨点至腭平面距离(H-PP)],并比较两组患者的主观感受情况。结果 Twin-block组的矫治总有效率(90.00%)与肌激组(80.00%)对比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。矫治8个月后,Twin-block组的AP-hp、 AP-sp、 AP-te、 H-PNS、 H-CVP、 H-MP、 H-PP均大于肌激组(P <0.05);Twin-block组的佩戴顺利、舒适性、依从性和美观度评分均低于肌激组(P <0.05)。结论 Twin-block功能矫治器与肌激动器用于矫治安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩的效果相当,但Twin-block功能矫治器能更有效地矫正安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩患者的舌骨位置,改善患者的气道形态,而肌激动器矫治患者的主观感受更好。Objective To compare and analyze the application effects of Twin-block functional orthodontic appliance and muscle activator in orthodontic treatment of patients with classⅡmandibular retrognathia.Methods The clinical data of 80 patients with classⅡmandibular retrognathia admitted to our hospital from January 2020 to January 2024 were retrospectively analyzed.Among them,40 patients treated with Twin-block functional orthodontic appliance were set as the Twin-block group,and 40 patients treated with muscle activator were set as the muscle activator group.The orthodontic effects,as well as the sagittal diameter of the upper airway[anteroposterior diameter of the airway at the hard palate plane(AP-hp),anteroposterior diameter of the airway at the soft palate tip plane(AP-sp),anteroposterior diameter of the airway at the epiglottis tip plane(AP-te)]and the position of the hyoid bone[distance from hyoidale to posterior nasal spine(H-PNS),distance from hyoid bone to cervical vertebrae plane(H-CVP),distance from hyoid bone to mandibular plane(H-MP),distance from hyoid bone to palatal plane(H-PP)]after 8 months of treatment were compared between two groups,and the subjective feelings of patients were compared between the two groups.Results No significant different was found in the total effective rate of orthodontic treatment between the Twin-block group and the muscle activator group(90.00%vs.80.00%,P>0.05).After 8 months of treatment,AP-hp,AP-sp,AP-te,H-PNS,H-CVP,H-MP and H-PP in the Twin-block group were higher than those in the muscle activator group(P<0.05);The scores of wearing smoothness,comfort,compliance,and aesthetics of the Twin-block group were lower than those of the muscle activator group (P <0.05). Conclusions Twin-block functionalorthodontic appliance and muscle activator applied in the orthodontic treatment of classⅡmandibular retrognathia have comparable effect, butTwin-block functional orthodontic appliance can more effectively correct the position of the hyoid bone and improve the shape of the a

关 键 词：安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩 TWIN-BLOCK功能矫治器 肌激动器 上气道矢状径 舌骨位置 主观感受 

分 类 号：R783.52[医药卫生—口腔医学]