双颌垫和肌激动器功能矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类错颌患者的疗效分析

发布时间：2018-05-28 10:17

本文选题：安氏Ⅱ类错颌 + 双颌功能垫矫治器　；参考：《新疆医科大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的:研究双颌垫和肌激动器功能矫治器矫治安氏Ⅱ类错颌畸形患者后对上下颌骨和软组织的变化方法:选择22例安氏Ⅱ类错颌患者,随机分为双颌垫治疗组和肌激动器治疗组。双颌垫治疗组女性6例,男性5例;肌激动器治疗组女性5例,男性6例。双颌垫功能矫治器治疗组平均治疗时间约为9个月,肌激动器功能矫治器平均治疗时间为10个月,治疗结束后测量治疗前后头颅侧位片并对测量结果进行统计学分析。结果:双颌垫和肌激动器治疗后SNA和HI(全面高比指数)减少,差异均没有统计学意义(P0.05);SNB,ANB,IMPA,Z角,UPPER-LIP(上唇厚度),TOTAL-CHIN(全颏厚),Ao-Bo减少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);FMIA,FMA,OCC-OLANE(咬合平面角),PFH,AFH增大,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两个治疗组相比较,双颌垫治疗组SNA大于肌激动器治疗组,HI大于双颌垫治疗组,差异均没有统计学意义(P0.05);SNB,ANB,FMA,OCC-PLANE,TOTAL-CHIN,PFH,AFH,AO-BO大于肌激动器治疗组,FMIA,IMPA,Z-ANGLE,UPPER-LIP大于双颌垫治疗组,差异都有统计学意义(P0.05)结论:双颌垫及肌激动器功能矫治器对生长发育期的安氏Ⅱ类错颌畸形患者有明显的治疗作用。双颌垫和肌激动器功能矫治器对上下颌骨有明显的治疗作用,但双颌垫功能矫治器的作用明显于肌激动器,双颌垫及激动器功能矫治器对软组织的作用效果相似。
[Abstract]:Objective: to study the changes of maxillary bone and soft tissue in patients with Class II malocclusion treated with bimaxillary pad and muscle activator. They were randomly divided into two-jaw pad treatment group and muscle activator treatment group. In the treatment group, 6 cases were female, 5 cases were male, 5 cases were female and 6 cases were male. The average treatment time was about 9 months in the bimaxillary pad functional appliance group and 10 months in the muscle activator appliance. After the treatment, the cranial lateral radiographs were measured before and after treatment and the results were statistically analyzed. Results: after the treatment of bimaxillary pad and muscle exciter, SNA and HIH (total high ratio index) decreased, but the difference was not statistically significant (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in UPPER-LIP (total chin thickness) and Ao-Bo (total chin thickness). The difference was significant (P 0.05). The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P 0.05), the SNA of the treatment group was greater than that of the group treated with muscle activator, and the difference was not statistically significant (P 0.05). The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. The difference between the two groups was greater than that in the group treated with muscular activator. The difference was larger than that in the group treated with muscular activator, and the difference was higher than that in the group treated with double maxillary pad, and the difference was not statistically significant between the two groups. The difference between the two groups was higher than that in the group treated with muscular activator, and the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. The difference was statistically significant (P 0.05). Conclusion: the bimaxillary pad and the functional appliance of muscle activator have obvious therapeutic effect on the patients with Class II malocclusion during growth and development. The effect of bimaxillary pad and muscle activator on the treatment of maxillary and mandibular bone was obvious, but the effect of bimaxillary pad was more obvious than that of muscle activator. The effect of bimaxillary pad and motor appliance on soft tissue was similar.
【学位授予单位】：新疆医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：R783.5

【相似文献】