Background Many cases of ClassⅡdeformities have been reported to be treated with prefabricated appliances.The aim of this study was to distinguish the clinical effect of traditional custom-made appliances and prefabr...Background Many cases of ClassⅡdeformities have been reported to be treated with prefabricated appliances.The aim of this study was to distinguish the clinical effect of traditional custom-made appliances and prefabricated appliances in the treatment of ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion.Therefore,soft and hard tissue changes following treatment of ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion using the twin-block(TB)appliance was compared to that using the Myofunctional Research Company(MRC)appliance(K1+K2)combined with oral myofunctional treatment(OMT)(MRC+OMT).Methods The study included 22 children(6 boys and 16 girls aged 9–11 years)with ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion along with mandibular retrognathism with a 5–12 mm overjet,basic normal maxillary status,and stage 2 or 3 cervical vertebral maturation(CVM).Participants were randomly assigned into two groups,the TB group and the MRC+OMT group for 12 months.Standardized lateral cephalograms were used to assess skeletal,dental,and soft tissue changes from pre-to post-treatment.Independent t-tests were used to compare the initial and final cephalometric status and tissue changes between the groups.Results The TB and MRC+OMT groups resulted in different degrees of lateral changes;however,improvements of skeletal and soft tissue indices were significantly greater in the TB group than in the MRC+OMT group.Conclusion TB was more effective than MRC+OMT in treating children aged 9–11 years with ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion.However,further research using custom-made appliances with OMT is recommended,and further investigations are needed to confirm these findings.展开更多
目的探讨数字化隐形矫治系统与传统的功能矫治器前导下颌的疗效对比分析。方法收集2019年10月至2021年1月绍兴市口腔医院收治的下颌后缩儿童72例进行回顾性分析,采用随机数字表法分为隐形矫治组(Inv组)和传统功能矫治(Fun组),每组各36例...目的探讨数字化隐形矫治系统与传统的功能矫治器前导下颌的疗效对比分析。方法收集2019年10月至2021年1月绍兴市口腔医院收治的下颌后缩儿童72例进行回顾性分析,采用随机数字表法分为隐形矫治组(Inv组)和传统功能矫治(Fun组),每组各36例。Inv组采用时代天使A6矫治系统,Fun组采用双颌垫(Twin-block)功能矫治器,两组患者均要求每天佩戴20h以上。佩戴10个月后,两组患者拍摄头颅侧位片及口内照片。通过模型测量磨牙关系和覆盖变化及头影测量分析等对比两组患者的临床疗效及美观程度,比较治疗满意度。结果治疗后两组治愈率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);患者停戴半年后比较两组治愈率,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗前后头侧片分析表明,反映下颌位置的颅底-下齿槽座角(sella nasion B point angle,SNB)度数在Inv组和Fun组均变化显著,且Fun组的变化显著高于Inv组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。上下齿槽座角(ANB angle,ANB)变化与SNB变化趋势一致,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。Inv组下前牙唇倾度变化高于Fun组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。调查问卷结果显示,Inv组的舒适性和依从性远高于Fun组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论时代天使A6矫治系统与Twin-block矫治器均能导下颌向前治疗下颌后缩畸形,Twin-block矫治器骨性效果显著大于A6系统,但A6系统佩戴舒适,患者依从性好,故其治愈率优于传统的功能矫治。展开更多
文摘Background Many cases of ClassⅡdeformities have been reported to be treated with prefabricated appliances.The aim of this study was to distinguish the clinical effect of traditional custom-made appliances and prefabricated appliances in the treatment of ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion.Therefore,soft and hard tissue changes following treatment of ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion using the twin-block(TB)appliance was compared to that using the Myofunctional Research Company(MRC)appliance(K1+K2)combined with oral myofunctional treatment(OMT)(MRC+OMT).Methods The study included 22 children(6 boys and 16 girls aged 9–11 years)with ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion along with mandibular retrognathism with a 5–12 mm overjet,basic normal maxillary status,and stage 2 or 3 cervical vertebral maturation(CVM).Participants were randomly assigned into two groups,the TB group and the MRC+OMT group for 12 months.Standardized lateral cephalograms were used to assess skeletal,dental,and soft tissue changes from pre-to post-treatment.Independent t-tests were used to compare the initial and final cephalometric status and tissue changes between the groups.Results The TB and MRC+OMT groups resulted in different degrees of lateral changes;however,improvements of skeletal and soft tissue indices were significantly greater in the TB group than in the MRC+OMT group.Conclusion TB was more effective than MRC+OMT in treating children aged 9–11 years with ClassⅡdivision 1 malocclusion.However,further research using custom-made appliances with OMT is recommended,and further investigations are needed to confirm these findings.
文摘目的探讨数字化隐形矫治系统与传统的功能矫治器前导下颌的疗效对比分析。方法收集2019年10月至2021年1月绍兴市口腔医院收治的下颌后缩儿童72例进行回顾性分析,采用随机数字表法分为隐形矫治组(Inv组)和传统功能矫治(Fun组),每组各36例。Inv组采用时代天使A6矫治系统,Fun组采用双颌垫(Twin-block)功能矫治器,两组患者均要求每天佩戴20h以上。佩戴10个月后,两组患者拍摄头颅侧位片及口内照片。通过模型测量磨牙关系和覆盖变化及头影测量分析等对比两组患者的临床疗效及美观程度,比较治疗满意度。结果治疗后两组治愈率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);患者停戴半年后比较两组治愈率,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗前后头侧片分析表明,反映下颌位置的颅底-下齿槽座角(sella nasion B point angle,SNB)度数在Inv组和Fun组均变化显著,且Fun组的变化显著高于Inv组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。上下齿槽座角(ANB angle,ANB)变化与SNB变化趋势一致,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。Inv组下前牙唇倾度变化高于Fun组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。调查问卷结果显示,Inv组的舒适性和依从性远高于Fun组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论时代天使A6矫治系统与Twin-block矫治器均能导下颌向前治疗下颌后缩畸形,Twin-block矫治器骨性效果显著大于A6系统,但A6系统佩戴舒适,患者依从性好,故其治愈率优于传统的功能矫治。
