摘要
目的比较上颌单颌拔牙与双颌拔牙矫治骨性Ⅱ类1分类错牙合患者的软硬组织变化,探讨掩饰性治疗成人骨性Ⅱ类错牙合的合适方案。方法成人骨性Ⅱ类1分类错牙合患者20例,单颌拔牙组10例上颌拔除两个第一前磨牙;双颌拔牙组10例上颌拔除两个第一前磨牙、下颌拔除两个第二前磨牙,将矫治前后的X线头影测量结果进行对比研究。结果矫治前后两组的U1-FH、U1-AP、H角均明显减小,UL-E、LL-E距离均明显缩小;Z角均明显增大,且差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两种拔牙模式L1-MP、LL-E、U1-L1、U1-FH、U1-AP的变化量差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);UL-E变化差异无统计学意义(t=0.80,P=0.430)。治疗前,单颌拔牙组FMA、LL-E较双颌拔牙组小。结论两种拔牙矫治方法均能达到内收前牙、改善软组织侧貌的治疗目的,但双颌拔牙方案矫治效果更好;临床应用中应根据主诉及具体情况选择好适应证。
Objective Comparing the effects of two alternative Class I1 division I treatment modalities for adult, to investigate the better treatment for Class II division I malocllusion. Methods Twenty adults with skeletal class lI divi- sion 1 were divided into two groups, and treated as followed. Group A was treated with extraction of two upper first bicus- pids, group B was treated with extraction of two upper first bicuspids and two lower second bicuspids. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were analyzed using cephalometric analysis and the data was analyzed by SPSS13.0. Results The angle of U1-FH, H, U1 -AP decreased, Z angle increased, upper and lower lip intruded significantly in both groups. The length of lower lip to E line in group B was decreased larger significantly than that in group A. Although the Z angle increment in group B was larger than group A. Conclusion Both methods could achieve the goal of retracting the upper incisors, improving the profiles; while four bicuspids extraction could achieve more significantly change.
出处
《广东牙病防治》
2013年第10期513-516,共4页
Journal of Dental Prevention and Treatment
关键词
正畸治疗
Ⅱ类错牙合
拔牙
软组织侧貌
O^hodontic treatment
Class Ⅱ malocclusion
Extraction
Soft-tissue profite
