双链法与自锁托槽联合种植支抗钉对正畸牙牙间隙关闭的疗效比较-现代医学

双链法与自锁托槽联合种植支抗钉对正畸牙牙间隙关闭的疗效比较

单位：承德医学院附属医院口腔科, 河北承德 067000

分类号：R783.5

出版年·卷·期（页码）：2018·46·第八期（894-897）

摘要：

目的：探讨双链法与自锁托槽联合种植支抗钉对正畸牙牙间隙关闭的疗效比较。方法：选取92例不同上下颌牙列间隙的正畸患者随机分为研究组和对照组各46例，研究组患者全部采用双链法治疗，对照组患者全部采用自锁托槽联合种植支抗钉技术。观察研究组和对照组患者尖牙、尖牙牙槽骨的高度、拔牙间隙的关闭速度及关闭量，检测患者牙龈指数（GI）、龈沟探诊深度（SPD）、龈沟出血指数（SBI）和菌斑指数（PLI）。结果：两组患者的尖牙牙根长度及尖牙牙槽骨高度治疗前后差值差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。研究组患者拔牙间隙关闭速度明显快于对照组，差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。与矫治前相比，矫治后6个月时两组患者GI、SPD、SBI和PLI均有显著改善（P<0.05），矫治后6个月时两组间GI、SPD、SBI三项牙龈健康指标差异无显著性意义（P>0.05）；双链法在矫治后6个月时PLI指标明显优于自锁托槽联合种植支抗钉技术组（P<0.05）。结论：双链法可加速拔牙间隙的关闭速度，且具有较好的安全性和实用性，可缩短疗程，提高疗效。

Objective:To explore the effect of double chain method and self-locking joint planting support for the closure of orthodontic tooth gap. Methods:92 cases of orthodontic patients with different maxillary and mandibular dentition spaces were randomly divided into study group and control group (n=46). All the patients in the study group were treated with double chain method, and the patients in the control group were treated with self-locking bracket combined with implant Anchorage. Both groups were studied the height of alveolar bone of canine teeth and alveolar bone and the closing speed and the closure of the tooth extraction clearance. Gingival index (GI), probing depth of gingival sulcus (SPD), gingival sulcus bleeding index (SBI) and plaque index (PLI) were measured. Results:There was no statistically significant difference of canine root length and alveolar bone height between the two groups. (P>0.05). The closing speed of tooth extraction clearance was significantly faster than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.05). Conclusions:Double-chain method can accelerate the closure speed of tooth extraction clearance with good safety and practicability. It can shorten the course of treatment and improve the curative effect.

参考文献：

[1] 邱伟芳,邓文正,谭汉提,等.自锁托槽结合微种植体支抗加速拔牙间隙关闭的临床研究[J].中国医药指南,2015,9(22):112-114.
[2] 罗永宏,冯建国,刘青,等.自锁托槽联合种植支抗钉矫治上颌前突的临床研究[J].吉林医学,2014,15(28):6276-6277.
[3] 刘彦.两种弹性装置关闭拔牙间隙的疗效比较[J].现代预防医学,2013,36(10):1990-1991.
[4] KALM J K.Overlay mechanics with the tip-edge plus bracket[J].J Clin Orthod,2006,40(2):78.
[5] 邱伟芳.自锁托槽联合种植支抗钉加速拔牙间隙关闭的效果观察[J].当代医学,2015,21(8):81-82.
[6] 吴春晓,米丛波,高文丽,等.MBT托槽、传动直丝弓托槽及M-LF托槽的摩擦力比较[J].中国美容医学,2017,26(4):102-105.
[7] PEREIRA G O,GIMENEZ C M,PRIETO L,et al.Influence of ligation method on friction resistance of lingual brackets with different second-order angulations:an in vitro study[J].Dental Press J Orthod,2016,21(4):34-40.
[8] 邵卓娜,李敏,宋俊松.应用缝扎硬化与微波热凝治疗口腔良性肿瘤的临床疗效对比[J].实用癌症杂志,2017,32(8):1251-1253.
[9] ALSUBIE M,TALIC N.Variables affecting the frictional resistance to sliding in orthodontic brackets[J].Dent Oral Craniofac Res,2016,2(3):271-275.
[10] CHAUDHARY V,LAHOTI S K,THETAY A,et al.A comparative study of frictional resistance of different orthodontic Archwires on ceramic brackets:an in vitro study[J].Int J Curr Res,2016,8(8):36261-36265.
[11] 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.
[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.

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【发表评论】【查看评论】【加入收藏】

提示：您还未登录，请登录！点此登录