| 张静,包晨刚,范建芬.“2×4”固定矫正术辅助RME联合前方牵引治疗替牙期反患者的临床研究[J].口腔材料器械杂志,2020,29(4):218-222. |
| “2×4”固定矫正术辅助RME联合前方牵引治疗替牙期反患者的临床研究 |
| Clinical observation of “2×4” fixed orthodontic appliances assisted RME combined with anterior traction in the treatment of crossbite malocclusion |
| 投稿时间：2019-03-25 修订日期：2020-03-18 |
| DOI：10.11752/j.kqcl.2020.04.08 |
| 中文关键词: “2×4”固定矫正术 RME联合前方牵引 替牙期反 |
| 英文关键词:"2×4" fixed orthodontic appliances RME combined with anterior traction Crossbite malocclusion during the period of tooth replacement |
| 基金项目:江阴市科技计划项目（编号：201608） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 548 |
| 全文下载次数: 904 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 分析“2×4”固定矫正术辅助RME联合前方牵引治疗替牙期反患者的临床疗效。方法 选择2017年2月至2018年11月在本院接受治疗的替牙期反患者32例，根据随机数字表分为对照组和观察组。对照组采用上颌快速扩弓（rapid maxillary expansion，RME）联合前方牵引治疗，观察组在对照组治疗措施的基础上应用2×4固定矫正术进行治疗。对两组患者临床疗效，咀嚼效率及上气道指标进行比较。结果 矫治后，观察组患者SNA和ANB高于对照组，SNB和SND低于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。矫治后及矫治后6个月，观察组患者咀嚼效率均显著高于对照组（P<0.05）。矫治后，观察组患者上气道体积（V总，V腭，V舌，V喉及V口）均显著大于对照组（P<0.05），观察组患者V鼻显著小于对照组（P<0.05）。矫治后，观察组患者AP/LHP低于对照组，AP/LSP高于对照组，AP/LTE低于对照组。结论 “2×4”固定矫正术辅助RME联合前方牵引能有效改善替牙期反患者上气道结构，促进咀嚼效能恢复，临床应用价值较高。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical efficacy of "2×4" fixed correction combined with RME combined with anterior traction in the treatment of crossbite malocclusion in patients in the period of tooth replacement. Methods From February 2017 to November 2018, 32 patients with crossbite malocclusion during the period of tooth replacement were randomly divided into two groups:the control group and the observation group. The control group was treated with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) combined with anterior traction, and the observation group was treated with "2×4" fixed orthodontic appliances on the basis of the treatment in the control group. The clinical efficacy, masticatory efficiency and upper airway index were compared between the two groups. Results After treatment, the SNA and ANB in the observation group were higher than those in the control group, and the SNBHE and SND in the control group was lower than that in the control group (P<0.05). Immediately after treatment and half a year after treatment, the masticatory efficiency in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<0.05). After treatment the V Total (upper airway volume), V palate (palatopharynx volume), V tongue (glossopharynx volume), V larynx (laryngopharyngeal volume) and V mouth (oropharyngeal volume) in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05), and the V nose (nasopharynx volume) in the observation group was significantly smaller than that in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). After treatment, the AP/LHP in the observation group was lower than that in control group, and the AP/LSP was higher than control group, and the AP/LTE was lower than that in control group. Conclusion "2×4" fixed orthodontic appliances combined with RME combined with anterior traction can effectively improve the structure of upper airway and promote the recovery of masticatory efficacy in patients with crossbite malocclusion during the period of tooth replacement. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |