河北医科大学学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (2): 197-200,213.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3205.2021.02.016

• • 上一篇    下一篇

上颌第二磨牙颊侧骨皮质区植入种植钉推磨牙向远中移动效果观察

  

  1. 青海省西宁市第一人民医院口腔正畸科,青海 西宁 810001
  • 出版日期:2021-02-25 发布日期:2021-03-09
  • 作者简介:吴泽琳(1981-),女,青海西宁人,青海省西宁市第一人民医院主治医师,医学学士,从事青少年及成人口腔正畸研究。

Observation on the effect of implant screws in the buccal cortical region of the maxillary second molars on distal movement of the molars

  1. Department of Orthodontics, the First People′s Hospital of Xining, Qinghai Province, Xining 810001, China
  • Online:2021-02-25 Published:2021-03-09

摘要: 目的  分析上颌第二磨牙颊侧骨皮质区植入种植钉推磨牙向远中移动效果。
方法  选取我院口腔正畸科门诊就诊的拒绝拔牙矫治患者80例,采用随机数字表法分为2组,观察组(n=40)采用在上颌第二磨牙颊侧骨皮质区植入种植钉,对照组(n=40)采用上颌第二前磨牙和第一磨牙牙根之间植入种植钉。比较矫治前后的头颅定位侧位片变化进行初步评价磨牙向远中移动效果。
结果   矫治前,2组患者的U1-X、U1-Y、U6-X、U6′-Y及U6″-Y比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);矫治后,对照组患者的U6′-Y、U6″-Y较矫治前明显减小,而观察组的U1-Y、U6′-Y、U6″-Y较矫治前明显减小,以及MTD明显小于对照组(P<0.05),同时观察组的U1-Y、U6″-Y明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。2组患者的U1-Y、U6-X、U6′-Y、U6″-Y及MTD差值比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而U1-X差值比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。矫治前,2组患者的面型角、鼻唇角、上唇突度、下唇突度比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);矫治后,2组的面型角、鼻唇角、上唇突度较矫治前明显改善(P<0.05),而下唇突度无明显变化(P>0.05),但观察组的面型角、鼻唇角、上唇突度改善幅度明显优于对照组(P<0.05)。
结论  在上颌第二前磨牙和第一磨牙牙根之间植入种植钉,上颌第一磨牙产生明显远中倾斜移动,而在上颌第二磨牙颊侧骨皮质区植入种植钉推磨牙向远中移动效果更好。


关键词: 正畸学, 矫正;牙种植体;磨牙

Abstract: Objective  To analyze the effect of implant screws in the buccal cortical region of the maxillary second molars on the distal movement of the molars. 
Methods  Eighty patients who declined tooth extraction and orthodontic treatment in outpatient department of our hospital were divided into the observation group(n=40) and control group(n=40) by random number table method. The observation group was treated with implant screws in the buccal cortical region of the maxillary second molars, and the control group was treated with implant screws between the roots of the maxillary second premolars and the first molars. The effects of distal movement of the molars were evaluated by the changes of lateral x-ray images of the head before and after orthodontics. 
Results  Before orthodonic treatment, there was no statistical significance in u1-x, U1-y, U6-x, U6′-y and U6′-y between the two groups(P>0.05). After treatment, the U6′-y and U6′-y of the control group were significantly reduced compared with those before orthodonic treatment, while the U1-y, U6′-y and U6′-y of the observation group were significantly reduced compared with those before orthodonic treatment, and the MTD was significantly lower than that of the control group(P<0.05). In addition, the U1-y and U6′-y of the observation group were significantly lower than those of the control group(P<0.05). The differences of U1-y, U6-x, U6′-y, U6′-y and MTD between the two groups were statistically significant(P<0.05), while the differences of U1-x were not statistically significant(P>0.05). Before orthodonic treatment, there was no statistical significance in the comparison of facial angle, nasolabial angle, upper lip protrusion and lower lip protrusion between the two groups(P>0.05). After orthodonic treatment, the facial angle, nasolabial angle and upper lip protrusion of the two groups were significantly improved(P<0.05), while the lower lip protrusion was not significantly changed(P>0.05). However, the improvement of facial angle, nasolabial angle and upper lip protrusion of the observation group was significantly better than that of the control group(P<0.05). 
Conclusion  Implanting of an implant screw between the maxillary second premolars and the roots of the first molars produced a significant distal oblique movement of the maxillary first molars, while the implanting of an implant screw in the buccal cortical region of the maxillary second molars produced a better distal movement of the molars. 


Key words: orthodontics, corrective, dental implants, molar