摘要
目的:分析与比较安氏Ⅱ1类错治疗前、后牙弓形态的变化。方法:应用计算机建立数学模型β函数,分析比较安氏Ⅱ1类错治疗前、后牙弓形态的变化。选择安氏Ⅱ1类错病例17例(男6例,女11例),平均年龄13.8岁。取矫治前、后石膏模型,将模型平行于基准平面扫描到计算机。由中切牙接触点、双侧尖牙牙尖点和双侧第一磨牙远中颊尖点5个点确定个体弓形。应用SPSS11.0软件包将2组弓形中的尖牙宽度(Wc)、磨牙宽度(Wm)、尖牙深度(Dc)、磨牙深度(Dm)以及e值进行配对t检验。结果:上、下牙弓宽度在矫治前、后有显著差异(P<0.05);上、下牙弓长度治疗前、后尖牙长度变化不明显,而第一磨牙长度具有显著性差异(P<0.001);治疗前、后,上、下牙弓形状无明显变化。结论:牙弓形态包括牙弓大小及牙弓形状。正畸治疗中,有时需要改变牙弓大小,但应保持患者治疗前的牙弓形状,以期获得稳定的长期疗效。
PURPOSE： To compare and analyze the changes in the arch form after orthodontic treatment for patients with Angle Ⅱ^1 malocclusion by Beta function in the description of arch form. METHODS： 17 patients （6 males,ll females ） with Angle Ⅱ^1 malocclusion were selected, with an average age of 13.8 years .Before and after orthodontic treatment, study models were obtained. The occlusal surfaces of the models were scanned with a ruler in the field. The contact point of the central incisors, the cusp tips of the canines and the distobuccal cusp tips of the first molars were used to determine the curve. The results were analyzed for paired t test using SPSS11.0 software package. RESULTS： The width of the dental arch changed significantly after treatment （P〈0.05）. The posterior length of the dental arch changed significantly （P〈0.001）. The maxillary and mandibular arch shapes didn＇t change before and after treatment. CONCLUSIONS： The arch form includes arch size and arch shape. The arch size should be changed for the need of orthodontic treatment, but the arch shape can＇ t be changed to obtain long-term stabilization of treatment results.
出处
《上海口腔医学》
CAS
CSCD
2008年第6期603-606,共4页
Shanghai Journal of Stomatology
