种植体支抗与传统口内支抗矫治上颌前突的效果比较

上海口腔医学 ›› 2016, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (4): 475-480.

种植体支抗与传统口内支抗矫治上颌前突的效果比较

马宁¹, 李巍然², 陈晓红¹, 郑旭¹

1.北京大学第三医院口腔科,北京 100191; 2.北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院正畸科,北京 100081

收稿日期:2015-06-01 出版日期:2016-08-25 发布日期:2016-09-06
通讯作者: 李巍然,E-mail:weiranli2003@163.com
作者简介:马宁(1978-),女,博士研究生,主治医师,

Comparison of treatment results between implant anchorage and traditional intraoral anchorage in patients with maxillary protrusion

MA Ning¹, LI Wei-ran², CHEN Xiao-hong¹, ZHENG Xu¹

1.Department of Stomatology, Peking University Third Hospital. Beijing 100191;
2.Department of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology. Beijing 100081, China

Received:2015-06-01 Online:2016-08-25 Published:2016-09-06

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的比较种植体支抗与传统口内支抗矫治上颌前突的效果。方法选择上颌需要拔除双侧第一前磨牙且需强支抗的上颌前突患者30例,随机分为种植体支抗组15例,传统口内支抗组15例。分别于治疗前（T1）和治疗后（T2）制取寄存模型、拍摄头颅侧位片。通过三维模型测量对比牙的移动效果,通过头影测量比较颌骨及软组织的改变。采用SPSS 17.0软件包进行统计学分析。结果①种植体支抗组上中切牙内收（6.661±1.328） mm,压低(0.129±1.815) mm;传统口内支抗组上中切牙内收(5.788±2.009) mm,伸长（2.623±1.776） mm。矢状向位移无显著差异（P>0.05）,垂直向位移有显著差异（P<0.05）。②种植体支抗组上颌第一磨牙前移（0.608±1.045） mm,压低(0.720±0.805) mm,腭向移动(0.477±0.904) mm;传统口内支抗组上颌第一磨牙前移（1.503±0.945） mm,伸长（0.072±0.690） mm,腭向移动(0.883±0.752) mm。矢状向及垂直向位移均有显著差异（P<0.05）,横向位移无显著差异（P>0.05）。③2组之间颌骨及软组织指标的改变无显著差异（P>0.05）。结论对于上颌前突患者,种植体支抗在上颌切牙的垂直向控制及支抗磨牙的矢状向、垂直向控制上优于传统口内支抗。

关键词: 种植体支抗, 传统口内支抗, 上颌前突

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the treatment effects in patients with maxillary protrusion between implant anchorage and traditional intraoral anchorage. METHODS: Thirty patients with maxillary protrusion treated with bilateral maxillary first premolars extractions and high anchorage were selected. They were randomly divided into implant anchorage group and traditional intraoral anchorage group. Each group had 15 cases. The casts and the cephalograms were obtained before treatment (T1) and after treatment (T2). Three-dimensional model analysis was used to compare the teeth movements between the two groups and cephalometric analysis was used to compare the changes of skeletal and soft tissues. The differences were analyzed with SPSS 17.0 software package. RESULTS: In the implant anchorage group, the upper central incisors were retracted by (6.661±1.328) mm and intruded by (0.129±1.815) mm. In the traditional intraoral anchorage group, the upper central incisors were retracted by (5.788±2.009) mm and extruded by (2.623±1.776) mm. There was no significant difference between the two groups in sagittal movement (P>0.05), but there was significant difference in vertical movement (P<0.05). In the implant anchorage group, the upper first molars were protracted by (0.608±1.045) mm, intruded by (0.608±1.045) mm and moved palatally by (0.477±0.904) mm. In the traditional intraoral anchorage group, the upper first molars were protracted by (1.503±0.945) mm, extruded by (0.072±0.690) mm and moved palatally by (0.883±0.752)mm. There was significant difference between the two groups in sagittal movement and vertical movement (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in horizontal movement(P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the changes of cephalometric measurements of skeletal and soft tissues (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implant anchorage maybe superior in vertical control of the maxillary incisors and also superior in sagittal and vertical control of the maxillary molars to traditional intraoral anchorage during management of maxillary protrusion.

Key words: Implant Anchorage, Traditional Intraoral anchorage, Maxillary protrusion

中图分类号:

R783.5

马宁, 李巍然, 陈晓红, 郑旭. 种植体支抗与传统口内支抗矫治上颌前突的效果比较[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2016, 25(4): 475-480.

MA Ning, LI Wei-ran, CHEN Xiao-hong, ZHENG Xu. Comparison of treatment results between implant anchorage and traditional intraoral anchorage in patients with maxillary protrusion[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2016, 25(4): 475-480.

参考文献

[1] 赵红艳, 姜文茹, 张晔, 等. 横腭杆-Nance弓联合支抗与口外弓增强磨牙支抗的比较[J].实用口腔医学杂志, 2005, 21(6): 733-735.
[2] 霍娜, 段银钟, 张菊菊, 等. 3种不同支抗形式拔牙矫治青少年双颌前突的临床研究[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2006,22(2):82-84.
[3] Geron S, Shpack N, Kandos S, et al. Anchorage Loss-a multifactorial response [J]. Angle Orthod, 2003, 73(6):730-737.
[4] Park HS, Bae SM, Kyung HM, et al. Micro-implant anchorage for treatment of a skeletal Class I bialveolar protrusion[J].J Clin Orthod, 2001, 35(7): 417-422.
[5] Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, et al. Dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of mini-implants in Class Ⅱ division 1 patients [J]. Angle Orthod, 2009, 79(2): 240-247.
[6] 寻春雷, 曾祥龙, 王兴. 自攻型微钛钉种植体增强磨牙支抗的临床应用研究[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2004, 39(6): 505-508.
[7] 李平, 毛靖, 朱声荣, 等. 微型种植体支抗在安氏Ⅰ类双颌前突矫治中的应用研究[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2007, 23(11): 688-690.
[8] 刘月华, 刘晶, 李强, 等. 种植体与横腭杆支抗对减数正畸患者临床疗效影响的比较[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2009, 44(8): 454-459.
[9] Liu YH, Ding WH, Liu J, et al. Comparison of differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implant or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2009, 36(9): 687-695.
[10] Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2008, 134(6): 803-810.
[11] Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, et al. Treatment effects of mini-implant for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2008, 134(1): 18-29.
[12] 许燕玲, 房兵, 毛丽霞, 等. 种植支抗辅助内收前牙的头影测量研究 [J]. 上海口腔医学, 2008, 17(1): 20-24.