微种植钉联合横腭杆支抗对安氏Ⅱ类高角患者磨牙垂直向、牙弓宽度及后牙颊倾度的影响

马涛; 张睿; 冯哲; 田炳欣

doi:10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002226

微种植钉联合横腭杆支抗对安氏Ⅱ类高角患者磨牙垂直向、牙弓宽度及后牙颊倾度的影响

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002226

马涛^{1, 2},
张睿³,
冯哲¹,
田炳欣^1, ,

1.
邢台医学高等专科学校第二附属医院口腔科, 河北邢台 054000
2.
邢台医学高等专科学校口腔系，河北邢台 054000
3.
河北医科大学第二医院口腔颌面外科，河北石家 050000

基金项目:

河北省重点研发计划项目 19277792D

详细信息

通讯作者:
田炳欣，E-mail: fengzhe588@126.com

中图分类号: R782.23 R783.5
计量
- 文章访问数: 250
- HTML全文浏览量: 151
- PDF下载量: 7
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-07-13
- 网络出版日期: 2022-03-02

Effect of micro-implant screw combined with transverse palatal rod anchorage on the vertical orientation, arch width and posterior cheek inclination of class Ⅱ high-angle patients

MA Tao^{1, 2},
ZHANG Rui³,
FENG Zhe¹,
TIAN Bing-xin^{1
, ,}

1.
Department of Stomatology, Xingtai Medical College (Second Affiliated Hospital of Xingtai Medical College), Xingtai, Hebei 054000, China

摘要

摘要: 目的比较微螺钉种植体支抗系统(MAS)联合横腭杆支抗(TPA)对安氏Ⅱ类高角患者的治疗效果。方法选取2014年6月—2015年6月邢台医学高等专科学校第二附属医院收治的安氏Ⅱ类高角患者40例，根据随机数字表法分为MAS组和MAS联合TPA组，每组各20例。采用X线头颅定位侧位片测量矫治前后磨牙垂直向距离，使用电子游标卡尺测量矫治前后的石膏模型上下颌牙弓横向宽度，对2组患者矫治前后采用锥形束CT(CBCT)测量分析第一磨牙颊倾度。比较2组患者磨牙垂直向距离、牙弓宽度以及后牙颊倾度的变化情况。结果经矫治后MAS联合TPA组的磨牙垂直向距离(L6-MP、LI-MP、U6M-SV、U6-PP和UI-PP)和MAS组(均P>0.05)，牙弓宽度各指标(U33、U55、U66、L33、L55、L66)和MAS组比较差异有统计学意义(均P < 0.05)。MAS联合TPA组的磨牙旋转角度、磨牙颊向移动距显著高于MAS组[(2.23±0.45)°vs. (1.06±0.24)°; (1.23±0.08)mm vs. (0.15±0.01)mm]，但磨牙位移显著低于MAS组[(3.13±0.66)mm vs. (5.21±0.82)mm，均P＜0.05]。结论 MAS联合TPA可有效降低磨牙垂直向的变化，促进牙弓宽度的增加，改善颊倾度，其对于安氏Ⅱ类高角患者的矫治效果显著优于MAS，值得临床推广。
- 垂直向 /
- 高角 /
- 微螺钉种植体 /
- 安氏Ⅱ类
Abstract: Objective To compare the effects of micro-implant screw anchorage system (MAS) combined with transverse palatal rod anchorage (TPA) on the angle Ⅱ high-angle patients. Methods Forty Class Ⅱ high-angle patients who were admitted to the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xingtai Medical College from June 2014 to June 2015 were selected. The patients were randomly divided into the MAS group and MAS combined with TPA group according to the number of entry time, with 20 cases each group. The vertical distance of molars before and after orthodontic treatment was measured by X-ray cephalometric lateral film. An electronic vernier caliper was used to measure the transverse width of the mandibular and upper dental arch before and after orthodontic treatment. The buccal inclination of the first molar was measured and analysed by CBCT before and after treatment. The changes of the vertical distance, the width of the arch and the buccal inclination of the posterior teeth were compared between the two groups. Results After correction, the vertical distance of the molar (L6-MP, LI-MP, U6M-SV, U6-PP and UI-PP) in the MAS combined with TPA group has no significant difference than that in the MAS group (all P>0.05), and each index of arch width (U33, U55, U66, L33, L55 and L66) in the MAS combined with TPA group the difference were statistically significant (all P < 0.05). The molar rotation angle and buccal distance in the MAS combined with TPA group were significantly higher than those in the MAS group [(2.23±0.45)° vs. (1.06±0.24)°; (1.23±0.08) mm vs. (0.15±0.01) mm], whilst the molar displacement was significantly lower in the MAS combined with TPA group than in the MAS group [(3.13±0.66) mm vs. (5.21±0.82) mm, all P < 0.05]. Conclusion MAS combined with TPA can effectively reduce the vertical change of molars, promote the increase of the arch width and improve buccal inclination. The effect of MAS combined with TPA is better than that of MAS in the treatment of Class Ⅱ high-angle patients, which is worthy of clinical application.
- Vertical /
- High-angle /
- Micro-screw implant /
- Angle class Ⅱ

HTML全文

图 1 牙齿相关测量指标

注：1为UI-PP；2为U6-PP；3为U6M-SV；4为LI-MP；5为L6-MP。

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 2组安氏Ⅱ类高角患者磨牙垂直方向指标比较(x±s，mm)

组别	例数	UI-PP		U6-PP		U6M-SV		LI-MP		L6-MP
组别	例数	矫治前	矫治后	矫治前	矫治后	矫治前	矫治后	矫治前	矫治后	矫治前	矫治后
MAS组	20	29.23±1.30	30.95±1.37^a	21.54±0.83	22.45±0.89^a	40.73±1.83	41.75±1.67^a	41.24±1.66	41.87±1.23	31.21±1.46	31.69±1.48
MAS联合TPA组	20	29.41±1.36	29.53±1.30	21.24±0.78	21.62±0.95	39.43±1.84	39.87±1.57	40.83±1.78	40.54±1.38	31.43±1.32	31.72±1.42
t值		0.244	1.923	1.178	1.821	1.809	1.717	0.477	1.314	0.500	0.065
P值		0.808	0.062	0.246	0.077	0.078	0.094	0.636	0.197	0.620	0.948
注：与矫治前比较，^aP < 0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 2组安氏Ⅱ类高角患者牙弓宽度比较(x±s，mm)

组别	例数	U33		U55		U66
组别	例数	矫治前	矫治后	矫治前	矫治后	矫治前	矫治后
MAS组	20	34.02±1.05	34.78±0.83^a	35.04±1.11	35.61±1.03	46.35±1.06	46.97±1.10
MAS联合TPA组	20	34.22±1.08	35.32±0.73^a	35.12±1.10	36.22±1.07^a	46.23±1.02	47.67±1.06^a
t值		0.594	2.185	0.229	2.138	0.365	2.049
P值		0.556	0.035	0.820	0.039	0.717	0.047

组别	例数	L33		L55		L66
组别	例数	矫治前	矫治后	矫治前	矫治后	矫治前	矫治后
MAS组	20	26.73±1.13	27.14±0.89	41.40±1.02	41.87±1.03	41.23±0.84	41.84±0.80^a
MAS联合TPA组	20	26.54±1.06	27.74±0.92^a	41.48±1.17	42.57±1.16^a	41.38±0.77	42.40±0.89^a
t值		0.548	2.096	0.230	2.118	0.589	2.093
P值		0.587	0.043	0.819	0.041	0.560	0.043
注：与矫治前比较，^aP < 0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 2组安氏Ⅱ类高角患者颊倾度比较(x±s)

组别	例数	磨牙旋转角度(°)	磨牙颊向移动距(mm)	磨牙位移(mm)
MAS组	20	1.06±0.24	0.15±0.01	5.21±0.82
MAS联合TPA组	20	2.23±0.45	1.23±0.08	3.13±0.66
t值		10.260	59.908	8.837
P值		< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(17)

[1]	YÁÑEZ-VICO R M, IGLESIAS-LINARES A, BALLESTA-MUDARRA S, et al. Short-term effect of removal of fixed orthodontic appliances on gingival health and subgingival microbiota: A prospective cohort study[J]. Acta Odontolo Scand, 2015, 73(7): 496-502. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2014.993701
[2]	赵军伟, 卢海燕. 拔牙与非拔牙矫治对安氏Ⅱ1患者微笑美的影响[J]. 河北医科大学学报, 2016, 37(2): 239-242. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3205.2016.02.035
[3]	刘洪, 牟雁东, 于晓光, 等. 口腔正畸治疗中微型种植体支抗的稳定和安全性[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2016, 20(8): 1159-1164. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XDKF201608016.htm
[4]	潘一春, 赵健慧. 腭中部微种植钉支抗系统的临床效果评价[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2014, 46(6): 969-974. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2014.06.030
[5]	陈敏, 宣桂红. 微型种植体支抗对青少年口腔正畸疗效及依从性的影响[J]. 中国现代医学杂志, 2018, 28(8): 94-97. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-8982.2018.08.020
[6]	蒋泱泱. 安氏Ⅱ2错()畸形治疗方法概述[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2015, 8(11): 694-698. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZSKQ201511022.htm
[7]	钱国辉, 周婷婷, 王冬玥, 等. 安氏Ⅰ类、Ⅱ类、Ⅲ类青少年的Bolton指数分析[J]. 口腔医学, 2015, 35(8): 642-643, 657. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KQYX201508012.htm
[8]	辛志武, 刘晔, 陈文静, 等. 垂直支持矫治器对高角病例垂直向控制效果的研究[J]. 实用口腔医学杂志, 2016, 32(5): 655-658. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-3733.2016.05.013
[9]	潘峰, 周洪, 卢蓁. 应用锥形束CT对安氏Ⅱ类患者正畸微种植体植入部位骨量评估的初步研究[J]. 河北医科大学学报, 2016, 37(9): 1041-1046. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3205.2016.09.013
[10]	孟秋菊, 王磊昌, 杜熹. 成人双颌前突支抗控制中微种植与横腭杆临床疗效对比研究[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2017, 10(2): 88-91. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZSKQ201702008.htm
[11]	HONG S B, KUSNOTO B, KIM E J, et al. Prognostic factors associated with the success rates of posterior orthodontic miniscrew implants: A subgroup meta-analysis[J]. Korean J Orthod, 2016, 46(2): 111-126. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.2.111
[12]	邱伟芳, 邓文正, 秦明群, 等. 自锁托槽结合微种植钉矫治骨性Ⅱ类错颌[J]. 重庆医学, 2018, 47(9): 1260-1263. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-8348.2018.09.035
[13]	ALBOGHA M H, KITAHARA T, TODO M, et al. Predisposing factors for orthodontic mini-implant failure defined by bone strains in patient-specific finite element models[J]. Ann Biomedical Eng, 2016, 44(10): 2948-2956. doi: 10.1007/s10439-016-1584-8
[14]	丁少华, 刘明海, 邹廷前. 种植钉与口外弓治疗骨性Ⅱ类高角前突型错牙合畸形的垂直向效果比较研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2019, 35(4): 351-354. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KQYZ201904013.htm
[15]	毛晓燕, 姜威, 李月玲, 等. 上海市嘉定区安氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合患者牙弓宽度和上后牙转矩特征分析[J]. 第二军医大学学报, 2019, 40(1): 108-111. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DEJD201901021.htm
[16]	曾婷艳, 黄生高. 种植体支抗稳定性的三维有限元分析[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志, 2018, 45(1): 112-118. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GWKQ201801025.htm
[17]	LU Y J, CHANG S S, YE J T, et al. Analysis on the stress of the bone surrounding mini-implant with different diameters and lengths under torque[J]. Biomed Mater Eng, 2015, 26 Suppl 1: 541-545. http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8a03/96884f1bd1778075d72220aa920d4908db65.pdf