双链法与微种植体支抗配合直丝弓矫治技术对正畸牙牙间隙关闭影响的对比观察

doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-7041.2018.04.011

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (0)

全文: PDF (1139 KB) HTML (2 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的探讨双链法矫治正畸牙牙间隙关闭的价值。方法前瞻性纳入2014年6月—2017年6月承德医学院附属医院口腔科72例不同上下颌牙列间隙的正畸患者,按数字表法随机分为研究组和对照组,每组36例。对照组患者采用微种植体支抗配合直丝弓矫治技术治疗,研究组患者采用双链法治疗;分别记录两组患者牙间隙关闭所需的时间、牙周指标和并发症等情况。结果研究组和对照组患者牙间隙关闭时间分别为(4.19±0.76)、(5.34±0.56)个月,差异有统计学意义(t=7.309, P＜0.01);尖牙牙冠远中舌向扭转率分别为5.56%(2/36)、27.78%(10/36),差异有统计学意义(χ²=6.400, P＜0.05)。矫治前和矫治后6个月:研究组患者牙龈指数(GI)分别为0.53±0.11、0.83±0.47,对照组分别为0.54±0.17、0.85±0.49,各组患者矫治前后GI差异均有统计学意义(t=3.729、3.586,P值均＜0.01);研究组龈沟探诊深度(SPD)分别为(2.25±0.43) mm、(2.87±0.47) mm,对照组分别为(2.17±0.37) mm、(2.82±0.54) mm,各组患者矫治前后SPD差异均有统计学意义(t=5.840、5.958, P值均＜0.01);研究组龈沟出血指数(SBI)分别为0.67±0.36、1.23±0.35,对照组分别为0.64±0.38、1.15±0.21,各组患者矫治前后SBI差异均有统计学意义(t=6.692、7.048, P值均＜0.05);研究组菌斑指数(PLI)分别为0.81±0.43、1.62±0.43,对照组分别为0.86±0.21、1.17±0.25,各组患者矫治前后PLI差异均有统计学意义(t=8.288、5.697, P值均＜0.05)。治疗前后两组间GI、SPD、SBI 差异均无统计学意义(P值均＞0.05);而矫治后6个月PLI研究组明显优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(t=5.428, P＜0.01)。研究组并发症发生率2.78%(1/36),对照组为13.89%(5/36),差异有统计学意义(χ²=22.500, P＜0.01)。结论在正畸治疗中,使用双链法可缩短正畸牙间隙关闭的时间,有利于牙周组织的健康,减少了并发症的发生率,值得临床的推广。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	赵婵媛
	王杨洋
	王鹏
	霍峰

关键词 ：正畸缺隙闭合, 双链法, 微种植体, 直丝弓矫治技术

Abstract：Objective To explore the effect of double chain method support on the closure of orthodontic tooth gap.Methods From June 2014 to June 2017, 72 patients of orthodontic patients with different maxillary and mandibular dentition clearances were randomly selected in Department of Stomatology, Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical College. The patients were randomly divided into the research group and the control group (n=36) according to the digital table. The control group patients all implants using micro technology with straight wire bow correction. The patients in the study group were treated with double chain method. The time required for tooth gap closure, periodontal index and complications in the two groups was recorded.Results The mean time of the closing time of tooth extraction clearance in the research group and in the control group were (4.19±0.76) and (5.34±0.56) months. The research group was shorter than the control group (t=7.309, P＜0.01). The reverse rate of the further tongue in the crown of fang in the two groups were 5.56%(2/36) and 27.78%(10/36). The research group was lower than the control group (χ²=6.400, P＜0.05) . The gingival index (GI)of the research group before and after 6 months treatment were 0.53±0.11 and 0.83±0.47, respectively. The control group was 0.54±0.17 and 0.85±0.49, respectively. Compared with pre-treatment, the GI in two groups were significantly improved after treatment for 6 months, the difference was statistically significant (t=3.729、3.586, all P values＜0.01). The SPD of the research group before and after 6 months treatment were (2.25±0.43) mm and(2.87±0.47) mm, respectively. The control group was (2.17±0.37) mm and(2.82±0.54)mm, respectively. Compared with pre-treatment, the SPD in two groups were significantly improved after treatment for 6 months, the difference was statistically significant (t=5.840, 5.958, P＜0.05). The SBI of the research group before and after 6 months treatment was 0.67±0.36 and 1.23±0.35, respectively. The control group was 0.64±0.38 and 1.15±0.21, respectively. Compared with pre-treatment, the SBI in two groups were significantly improved after treatment for 6 months, the difference was statistically significant (t=6.692, 7.048, all P values＜0.05). The PLI of the research group before and after 6 months treatment was 0.81±0.43 and 1.62±0.43, respectively. The control group was 0.86±0.21 and 1.17±0.25, respectively. Compared with pre-treatment, the PLI in two groups were significantly improved after treatment for 6 months, the difference was statistically significant (t=8.288, 5.697, all P values＜0.05). Between the two groups of the GI, SPD, SBI were not significantly improved before and after treatment (all P values＞0.05),while the research group of the PLI index was significantly better than control group,the difference was statistically significant (t=5.428, all P values＜0.01). The incidence of complications in the research group was 2.78%(1/36),the control group was 13.89%(5/36),the difference was statistically significant(χ²=22.500, P＜0.01).Conclusions In orthodontic therapy, double chain method to close the orthodontic tooth gap has shorten the time, it is good for the health of periodontal tissue and reduce the incidence of complications.So it is worthy of clinical promotion.

Key words： Orthodontic space closure Double chain method Micro implant Direct silk arch technique

收稿日期: 2017-12-14

基金资助:承德市科学技术研究与发展计划项目(201606A025)

通讯作者: 霍峰, Email: huofeng412@126.com

引用本文:

赵婵媛, 王杨洋, 王鹏, 霍峰. 双链法与微种植体支抗配合直丝弓矫治技术对正畸牙牙间隙关闭影响的对比观察[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2018, 23(4): 333-337.
Zhao Chanyuan, Wang Yangyang, Wang Peng, Huo Feng.. Comparative study of double chain method and micro implant anchorage with straight wire appliance on orthodontic tooth gap closure. Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, 2018, 23(4): 333-337.

链接本文:

http://www.cjac.com.cn/CN/10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-7041.2018.04.011 或 http://www.cjac.com.cn/CN/Y2018/V23/I4/333

[1]	张摇黎, 郑根建, 张治汉. RGD多肽仿生修饰微种植体支抗骨界面结合强度的实验研究[J]. 吉林医学, 2012, 33(13): 2695-2697. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004-0412.2012.13.002
[2]	Kang T, Huang SY, Huang JJ, et al. The effects of diamond-like carbon films on fretting wear behavior of orthodontic archwire-bracket contacts[J]. J Nanosci Nanotechnol, 2015, 15(6): 4641-4647. DOI:10.1166/jnn.2015.9788
[3]	Lopes M, Felizardo K, Kaneshima R, et al. Evaluation of tensile and friction resistance of various orthodontic elastomeric ligatures[J]. Br J Med Med Res, 2016, 17(6): 1-8. DOI:10.9734/bjmmr/2016/28045
[4]	Doshi UH, Bhad-Patil WA. Static frictional force and surface roughness of various bracket and wire combinations[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2011, 139(1): 74-79. DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.02.031
[5]	孙海燕, 李霞, 李齐宏, 等. MBT直丝弓技术结合微种植体支抗内收前牙病例分析[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2013, 29(8): 500-501. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-1634.2013.08.022
[6]	邱伟芳, 邓文正, 秦明群, 等. 轻力结合微种植体支抗快速矫治上颌前突错效果观察[J]. 海南医学, 2016, 27(22): 3754-3756. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-6350.2016.22.050
[7]	安志良, 胡玉柱, 詹颖, 等. 微型种植体支抗在内收前牙正畸治疗中的临床应用[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志, 2008, 35(1): 5-6. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1673-5749.2008.01.002
[8]	李勇伟, 谢莉莉, 罗仁惠. 平台转移种植体和传统基台连接种植体边缘骨吸收比较[J]. 海南医学, 2017, 28(15): 2546-2547. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-6350.2017.15.046
[9]	张月兰, 时毅, 刘林嶓, 等. 正畸力大小对牙周健康成人牙齿移动速度的影响[J]. 河南医学研究, 2012, 21(3):280-282, 284. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004-437X.2012.03.008
[10]	张翠香, 王瑜琴, 王艾萍, 等. 口腔干预配合个体化饮食及强化运动指导在2型糖尿病合并牙周病患者中的应用效果[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2017, 14(16): 2381-2384. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2017.16.018
[11]	赵兵, 王丹, 魏润生, 等. 葛根芩连汤治疗慢性牙周炎合并动脉粥样硬化的疗效及机制分析[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2017, 14(19): 2845-2847. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2017.19.011
[12]	杨春侠, 霍炳鑫, 刘丽静, 等. 选择性釉质酸蚀结合自酸蚀黏接树脂边缘微渗漏的体外实验研究[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2016, 13(16): 2319-2321. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2016.16.032
[13]	周灏, 陈荣敬. 螺旋弹簧与链状橡皮圈远移尖牙效果比较[J]. 山东医药, 2007, 47(29): 71. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-266X.2007.29.038
[14]	李艳平, 李春晖. 正畸治疗前、后龈沟及口腔中细菌的变化情况分析[J]. 广西医科大学学报, 2017, 34(3): 420-423. DOI:10.16190/j.cnki.45-1211/r.2017.03.025
[15]	林宵辉, 蔡剑林, 梁景星, 等. 滋阴降火中药治疗中重度慢性牙周炎疗效及对龈沟液中炎性因子、病原菌的影响[J]. 现代中西医结合杂志, 2017, 26(30): 3378-3380. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-8849.2017.30
[16]	吴晓梅. 中西医结合治疗牙周-牙髓联合病变临床分析[J]. 亚太传统医药, 2016, 12(19): 98-99. DOI:10.11954/ytctyy.201619040
[17]	金年强, 吴立鹏. 正畸治疗对牙周病患者牙周状况改变的影响分析[J]. 医学理论与实践, 2017, 30(16): 2423, 2455. DOI:10.19381/j.issn.1001-7585.2017.16.045
[18]	程伟, 程名涛, 朱亚妮. 固定矫治器对正畸治疗患者龈沟液检测指标及牙周状况的影响[J]. 中国美容医学, 2013, 22(1): 179-181. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-6455.2013.01.073