比较种植体与传统方法压低上前牙疗效的Meta分析

发布时间：2019-01-20 11:42

【摘要】：目的:比较种植体支抗与传统方法(J钩、多用途弓)压低上颌前牙的临床疗效。方法:计算机检索英文数据库（EMbase、Pub Med、 CochraneLibrary等）中文数据库（万方、维普、CNKI等）及其他在线数据库，收集比较种植体与传统方法压低上前牙的随机对照试验（randomizedcontrol test,RCT）及病例对照试验（prospective casecontrolled study，CCS）,并追查纳入文献的参考文献。经文献筛选、资料提取和质量评价后，采用Cochrane协作网推荐的RevMan5．1软件进行Meta分析。结果:共有11个研究纳入，其中J钩部分为6个研究，154例患者；多用途弓部分为5个研究，127例患者。Meta分析结果显示：①与J钩相比，种植体组U1-PP距变化量较多[95%CI（0.87，1.83）P＜0.00001]、覆牙合变化量较多[95%CI（0.33，1.38）P=0.001]、治疗时间较短[95%CI（-4.85，-2.85）P＜0.00001]、SN-OP角增大量较少[95%CI （-2.49，，-0.47）P=0.004]、U6-PP距变化量较少[95%CI（-0.25，-0.01）P=0.03]；两组在覆盖变化量、牙根吸收量差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。②与多用途弓相比，种植体组U1cr-PP距变化量较多[95%CI（0.12，0.93）P=0.01]、U6-PP角增大量较少[95%CI（-11.43，-5.33）P＜0.00001]；两组在U1-PP距、U1-PP角、U6-PP距、 U6水平向移动距离、覆牙合、覆盖、疗程、牙根吸收量差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论:种植体压低上前牙疗效优于传统方法（J钩、多用途弓）。与J钩对比：种植体所需时间少，对牙合平面的影响较小，且患者较舒适，两者牙根吸收量相当。与多用途弓对比：微螺钉种植体对第一磨牙影响较小，两者压低所需时间及牙根吸收量相当。
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare the clinical effect of implant Anchorage and traditional method (J hook, multi-purpose arch) on maxillary anterior teeth. Methods: English database (EMbase,Pub Med, CochraneLibrary et al.) Chinese database (Wanfang, Wiper, CNKI, etc.) and other online databases were searched by computer. (randomizedcontrol test, was collected and compared between implants and traditional methods to lower the anterior teeth. RCT) and case-control trial (prospective casecontrolled study,CCS), and tracing the references included in the literature. After literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation, Meta analysis was carried out with RevMan5.1 software recommended by Cochrane Cooperative Network. Results: a total of 11 studies were included, including 6 cases with J hook and 154 patients. The results of Meta analysis showed that: 1 compared with J hook, the distance of U1-PP in implant group changed more [95%CI (0.87 卤1.83) P < 0.00001]. The changes of overbite were more frequent [95%CI (0.33 卤1.38) P0. 001], the treatment time was shorter [95%CI (-4.85% -2.85) P < 0.00001], and the increase of SN-OP angle was less [95%CI (-2.49), P < 0.05]. -0.47) P0. 004], U6-PP distance was less [95%CI (-0.25- 0.01) Pn0. 03]; There was no significant difference in the change of coverage and root absorption between the two groups (P > 0. 05). 2 compared with the multi purpose arch, the distance of U1cr-PP in the implant group was much higher [95%CI (0. 12 ~ 0. 93) P < 0. 01]. The increase of U6-PP angle was less [95%CI (-11.43 卤5.33) P < 0.00001]; There was no significant difference in U1-PP distance, U1-PP angle, U6-PP distance, U6 horizontal moving distance, overbite, coverage, course of treatment and root resorption between the two groups (P > 0. 05). Conclusion: implant depression is superior to traditional method (J hook, multi-purpose arch). Compared with J hook, the implant needed less time, had less influence on the occlusal plane, and the patient was more comfortable. Compared with multipurpose arch, microscrew implants had little effect on the first molar, and the time required to suppress the first molar and the amount of root absorption were the same.
【学位授予单位】：重庆医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R783.5

【参考文献】