摘要
目的:比较分析AngleⅡ类错牙合畸形患者牙弓宽度及其牙弓形态特点。方法:选择AngleⅡ1类错牙合畸形患者(平均年龄15.6岁)、AngleⅡ2类错牙合畸形患者(平均年龄15.8岁)和对照组AngleⅠ类轻度错牙合畸形患者(平均年龄16.2岁)的原始模型各40副,测量每副模型的上下尖牙、第一前磨牙、第二前磨牙、第一磨牙之间的距离,计算上、下颌对应牙弓宽度差;对各组各项牙弓宽度和牙弓宽度差进行t检验。结果:AngleⅡ1类错牙合畸形患者上颌牙弓宽度较AngleⅠ类轻度错牙合畸形患者狭窄,但差异无显著性(P>0.05),AngleⅡ1类错牙合畸形患者下颌牙弓宽度与AngleⅠ类轻度错牙合畸形患者无显著差异(P>0.05);AngleⅡ2类错牙合畸形患者上颌中、后牙弓宽度和下颌牙弓宽度较AngleⅠ类轻度错牙合畸形患者的牙弓宽度窄,差异有显著性(P<0.05);AngleⅡ1类错牙合畸形患者下颌牙弓宽度比AngleⅡ2类错牙合畸形患者下颌牙弓宽大,差异有显著性(P<0.05);AngleⅡ1类错牙合畸形患者上下颌宽度差小于AngleⅠ类轻度错牙合畸形患者,尖牙、第二前磨牙处差异有显著性(P<0.05);AngleⅡ2类错牙合畸形患者上下颌牙弓宽度差与AngleⅠ类轻度错牙合畸形患者无显著差异(P>0.05);AngleⅡ1类错牙合畸形患者上下颌牙宽度差比AngleⅡ2类错牙合畸形患者小,尖牙处宽度差差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论:AngleⅡ1、AngleⅡ2错牙合畸形患者上颌牙弓以及AngleⅡ2错牙合畸形患者下颌牙弓宽度发育均有不足,治疗中可适当进行扩弓。
PURPOSE： The aim of this study was to compare the transverse dimensions of the dental arches of Class Ⅱ division Ⅰ and Class Ⅱ division 2 malocclusion groups with mild Class Ⅰ malocclusion subjects. METHODS： Measurements were performed on dental casts of 40 mild Class I malocclusion （mean age： 16.2 years）,40 Class Ⅱ division 1 （mean age： 15,6years）, and 40 Class Ⅱ division 2 （mean age： 15,8 years） malocclusion subjects respectively, The dental arch width in the canine, first premolar, second premolar, and molar regions were measured and the arch differences of each groups were calculated. Independent-samples t test was applied for comparisons of the groups. RESULTS： The results indicated that the maxillary canine, premolar and molar width were narrower in subjects with Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion than in the mild Class Ⅰ malocclusion sample, but the difference was not significant statistically （P〉0.05）, and the mandibular widths were not significantly different in subjects with Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion and in the mild Class Ⅰ malocclusion sample （P〉0.05）; the maxillary premolar, molar width and mandibular width were significantly narrower in subjects with Class Ⅱ division 2 malocclusion than in the mild Class Ⅰ malocclusion sample （P〈0.05） statistically; the mandibular width were significantly wider in subjects with Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion than in the Class Ⅱ division 2 malocclusion sample（P 〈0.05 ）; the width difference was narrower in subjects with Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion than in the mild Class Ⅰ malocclusion sample, the canine and second premolar width differences were significantly narrower （P〈0.05）; the width differences were not significant in subjects with Class Ⅱ division 2 malocclusion and in the mild Class Ⅰ malocclusion sample （P〉0.05）; the width difference was less in subjects with Class 2 division 1 malocclusion than in Class Ⅱ division 2 malocclusion sample, the canine width w
出处
《上海口腔医学》
CAS
CSCD
2005年第6期597-600,共4页
Shanghai Journal of Stomatology
