摘要
目的:对比MRC矫治器与肌激动器治疗口呼吸患者临床疗效。方法:纳入因口呼吸所致的安氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合替牙期患者20例,随机分为两组(n=10),分别佩戴MRC矫治器K系列和肌激动器(必要时扩弓),对两组患者矫治前后的头影测量数据进行对比分析。结果:与术前相比,两组患者矫治后,∠SNA均无明显变化(P>0.05);∠SNB均有增加,∠ANB均有减小,下颌骨逆时针生长明显,Co-Pg增加,变化均具有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组矫治后U1-NA(mm)、U1-NA(°)均有减小,但肌激动器组治疗前后具有统计学差异(P<0.05);Overjetst覆盖减小(P<0.05),上颌前牙内收明显。两组各项头影测量数据相比,除U1-NA(mm)和U1-NA(°)有显著差异外(P<0.05),其余均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:MRC矫治器K系列及肌激动器对口呼吸患者的治疗均有明显效果,临床中可根据其适应症、及患者喜好等进行选择。
AIM： To compare the clinical effects of MRC appliance and traditional appliance Activator in the treatment of oral respiration. METHODS： 20 cases of oral breathing with class II 1 malocclusion in mixed dentition were randomly divided into 2 groups （ n =10） and treated by MRC appliance K series and Activator respectively （if necessary, use arch expansion）. Orthodontic cephalometric data were measured before and after, date analyzed were. RESULTS： After treatment in all the subjects of the 2 groups, ∠SNB and ∠ANB decreased （ P 〈0.05）, mandibular clockwise growth was significant, Co-Pg increased （ P 〈0.05）, U1-NA（mm） and U1-NA（°） decreased （ P 〈0.05） , overjet decreased（ P 〈0.05）, anterior teeth retraction was significant（ P 〈0.05）. There was no significant change in ∠SNA. CONCLUSION： MRC appliance K series and activator are effective in the treatment of patients with oral respiration, and they can be selected according to their indications and the preferences of patients and dentists.
作者
孙琦
彭源
SUN Qi;PENG Yuan(Zhengzhou Hospital of Stomatology,Zhengzhou 450000,Chin)
出处
《牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志》
CAS
2018年第7期410-413,共4页
Chinese Journal of Conservative Dentistry
