摘要
目的 探讨前牵引矫治器和 Frankel 型矫治器治疗安氏 类错的矫治机制。 方法 安氏 类患者 4 0例 ,前牵引矫治器治疗 2 0例 (前牵引组 ) ,Frankel 型矫治器治疗 2 0例 (FR组 )。治疗前后均拍摄头颅侧位片。选择 1 4个硬组织标志点和 1 0个软组织标志点 ,测量 1 7个角度 ,7个线距。采用 SPSS1 0 .0统计分析软件包 t检验分析。 结果 前牵引组 SNA角的角度明显增大 ,FR组亦增加 ,但无前牵引组大 ,两组差异有显著性。SNB角两组均无明显变化。两组的下颌骨均向下、向后旋转。FR组上前牙唇倾、下前牙舌倾。前牵引组牙齿无明显变化。 结论 前牵引组所产生的颌骨矫形作用较大 ,FR组的牙移动较大。
Objective To evaluate the treatment effects of Frnkel appliance and face mask appliance for class Ⅲ malocclusion. Methods Fourty patients with class Ⅲ malocclusion were divided into two groups and treated with Frnkel appliance and face mask appliance. Cephalometric analysis were performed. Seven linear and 17 anglar measurements were analyzed on each radiograph. Results Both groups yielded an increase of SNA angles, face mask group was more significantly than Frnkel group. Both appliances appeared to produce minimal change in ANB angles. The mandibular retracted backward and downward in two groups. In Frnkel group upper incisor inclined labially and lower incisor inclined lingually. Conclusion Face mask group produced more skeletal effects but Frnkel group produced more dental effects. Soft tissue profile were improved in two groups.;
出处
《福建医科大学学报》
2004年第2期176-178,共3页
Journal of Fujian Medical University
关键词
错HE
安氏Ⅲ类
口外牵引器
正畸矫正器
对比研究
malocclusion,Angle class Ⅲ
extraoral traction appliance
orthodontic appliances
comparative study
