Tip—EdgePlus差动直丝弓技术和MBT直丝弓技术治疗安氏Ⅱ1错牙合畸形患者临床及美学效果比较(1)
[摘要]目的：探討Tip-Edge Plus差动直丝弓技术和MBT直丝弓技术治疗安氏Ⅱ1错牙合畸形患者的临床及美学效果。方法：选择笔者医院收治的56例安氏Ⅱ1类错牙合畸形患者为研究对象，采用随机数字表分为Tip-Edge Plus组与MBT组矫正治疗，每组28例，于术后随访，治疗前后均进行上下颌切牙根尖片并进行根吸收评分，同时检测头影测量均值，记录两组打开咬合所需时间及复诊次数，于最后一次随访时通过满意度评价量表评估其治疗满意度。结果：两组上下颌第一前磨牙、第二前磨牙牙根吸收分布情况均无显著性差异(P>0.05)；治疗后Tip-Edge Plus组SNA(83.41±3.65)°，U1-NA(35.72±4.61)°，MBT组依次为(81.24±4.29)°、(26.43±4.85)°，两组SNA、UI-NA较治疗前显著下降(P<0.05)，且Tip-Edge Plus组U1-NA显著低于MBT组(P<0.05)，但两组SNB、L1-NB、FMA比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)；Tip-Edge Plus组矫治时间(24.2±2.3)月，与MBT组(23.8±2.5)月比较，无显著性差异(P>0.05)，但复诊次数、打开咬合时间(16.5±2.7)次、(3.8±0.7)月均显著低于MBT组(22.3±3.8)次、(4.6±1.2)月(P<0.05)；Tip-Edge Plus组满意度评分(94.6±2.3)分，与MBT组(95.2±2.4)分无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论：Tip-Edge Plus差动直丝弓技术和MBT直丝弓技术均可有效治疗安氏Ⅱ1类错牙合畸形，矫治效果基本一致，但前者可快速恢复咬合关系，减少复诊次数。
, 百拇医药
[关键词]Tip-Edge Plus差动直丝弓技术；MBT直丝弓技术；安氏Ⅱ1错牙合畸形；美学效果
[中图分类号]R783.5 [文献标志码]A [文章编号]1008-6455(2018)07-0068-04
Abstract： Objective To investigate the clinical and aesthetic effects of Tip-Edge Plus differential straight wire technique versus MBT straight wire technique in the treatment of Angle’s Class II division 1 malocclusion. Methods 56 patients with Angle’s Class Ⅱdivision 1 malocclusion in the hospital were selected as the subjects， and they were randomly divided into Tip-Edge Plus group and MBT group by the random number table method， with 28 cases in each group. All patients were followed up for 24 months after operation. The supramaxillary and submaxillary incisors periapical films and root resorption scores were observed before and after treatment， and the mean value of cephalometrics was recorded. The time required for opening occlusion and the times of subsequent visit of the two groups were recorded， and the treatment satisfaction was assessed by the satisfaction rating scale at the last follow-up. Results There was no significant difference in root resorption of the supramaxillary and submaxillary first premolar and the second premolar between the two groups (P>0.05). After treatment， the SN plane-subspinale angle (SNA) and the angle between upper incisor to NA line (U1-NA) in Tip-Edge Plus group [(83.41±3.65) degrees， (35.72±4.61) degrees] and MBT group [(81.24±4.29) degrees， (26.43±4.85) degrees] were decreased significantly， compared with those before treatment (P<0.05)， and the U1-NA in Tip-Edge Plus group was significantly lower than that in MBT group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in SN plane-supramental angle (SNB)， the Angle between lower incisor to NB line (L1-NB) or the frankfort mandibular plane angle (FMA) (P>0.05). There was no significant difference of orthodontic treatment time between Tip-Edge Plus group and MBT group [(24.2±2.3) months vs (23.8±2.5) months] (P>0.05). However， the times of subsequent visit and the time of opening occlusion [(16.5±2.7)， times， (3.8±0.7) months] were significantly less / shorter than those of MBT group [(22.3±3.8) times， (4.6±1.2) months] (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the satisfaction score between Tip-Edge Plus group and MBT group [(94.6±2.3) vs (95.2±2.4)] (P>0.05). Conclusion Both of Tip-Edge Plus differential straight wire technique and MBT straight wire technique are effective in the treatment of Angle’s Class II division 1 malocclusion， and orthodontic effects are similar. However， the former can quickly restore the occlusal relationship and reduce the times of subsequent visit., 百拇医药(熊亚芳 朱妮蔓)
, 百拇医药
[关键词]Tip-Edge Plus差动直丝弓技术；MBT直丝弓技术；安氏Ⅱ1错牙合畸形；美学效果
[中图分类号]R783.5 [文献标志码]A [文章编号]1008-6455(2018)07-0068-04
Abstract： Objective To investigate the clinical and aesthetic effects of Tip-Edge Plus differential straight wire technique versus MBT straight wire technique in the treatment of Angle’s Class II division 1 malocclusion. Methods 56 patients with Angle’s Class Ⅱdivision 1 malocclusion in the hospital were selected as the subjects， and they were randomly divided into Tip-Edge Plus group and MBT group by the random number table method， with 28 cases in each group. All patients were followed up for 24 months after operation. The supramaxillary and submaxillary incisors periapical films and root resorption scores were observed before and after treatment， and the mean value of cephalometrics was recorded. The time required for opening occlusion and the times of subsequent visit of the two groups were recorded， and the treatment satisfaction was assessed by the satisfaction rating scale at the last follow-up. Results There was no significant difference in root resorption of the supramaxillary and submaxillary first premolar and the second premolar between the two groups (P>0.05). After treatment， the SN plane-subspinale angle (SNA) and the angle between upper incisor to NA line (U1-NA) in Tip-Edge Plus group [(83.41±3.65) degrees， (35.72±4.61) degrees] and MBT group [(81.24±4.29) degrees， (26.43±4.85) degrees] were decreased significantly， compared with those before treatment (P<0.05)， and the U1-NA in Tip-Edge Plus group was significantly lower than that in MBT group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in SN plane-supramental angle (SNB)， the Angle between lower incisor to NB line (L1-NB) or the frankfort mandibular plane angle (FMA) (P>0.05). There was no significant difference of orthodontic treatment time between Tip-Edge Plus group and MBT group [(24.2±2.3) months vs (23.8±2.5) months] (P>0.05). However， the times of subsequent visit and the time of opening occlusion [(16.5±2.7)， times， (3.8±0.7) months] were significantly less / shorter than those of MBT group [(22.3±3.8) times， (4.6±1.2) months] (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the satisfaction score between Tip-Edge Plus group and MBT group [(94.6±2.3) vs (95.2±2.4)] (P>0.05). Conclusion Both of Tip-Edge Plus differential straight wire technique and MBT straight wire technique are effective in the treatment of Angle’s Class II division 1 malocclusion， and orthodontic effects are similar. However， the former can quickly restore the occlusal relationship and reduce the times of subsequent visit., 百拇医药(熊亚芳 朱妮蔓)