论文部分内容阅读
目的:分析与比较安氏Ⅱ1类错治疗前、后牙弓形态的变化。方法:应用计算机建立数学模型β函数,分析比较安氏Ⅱ1类错治疗前、后牙弓形态的变化。选择安氏Ⅱ1类错病例17例(男6例,女11例),平均年龄13.8岁。取矫治前、后石膏模型,将模型平行于基准平面扫描到计算机。由中切牙接触点、双侧尖牙牙尖点和双侧第一磨牙远中颊尖点5个点确定个体弓形。应用SPSS11.0软件包将2组弓形中的尖牙宽度(Wc)、磨牙宽度(Wm)、尖牙深度(Dc)、磨牙深度(Dm)以及e值进行配对t检验。结果:上、下牙弓宽度在矫治前、后有显著差异(P<0.05);上、下牙弓长度治疗前、后尖牙长度变化不明显,而第一磨牙长度具有显著性差异(P<0.001);治疗前、后,上、下牙弓形状无明显变化。结论:牙弓形态包括牙弓大小及牙弓形状。正畸治疗中,有时需要改变牙弓大小,但应保持患者治疗前的牙弓形状,以期获得稳定的长期疗效。
OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare the changes of dental arch morphology before and after treatment with Class Ⅱ 1 malocclusion. Methods: The β function of the mathematical model was established by computer, and the change of dental arch morphology before and after treatment of Class Ⅱ 1 malocclusion was analyzed and compared. 17 cases of Class Ⅱ 1 malocclusion were selected (6 males and 11 females) with an average age of 13.8 years. Before and after orthodontic treatment, cast the model parallel to the reference plane and scan to the computer. From the incisor contact point, the bilateral canine cusp tip and bilateral first molar distal midpoint of the five points to determine the individual arcuate. SPSS11.0 software package was used to paired t-test with canine width (Wc), molar width (Wm), canine depth (Dc), molar depth (Dm) Results: The width of upper and lower dental arch was significantly different before and after treatment (P <0.05). The length of upper and lower dental arch did not change significantly before and after treatment, while the length of first molar was significantly different (P <0.05) <0.001). Before and after treatment, the shapes of upper and lower dental arch did not change significantly. Conclusion: The shape of dental arch includes the size of dental arch and the shape of dental arch. Orthodontic treatment, and sometimes need to change the size of the dental arch, but should maintain the dental arch shape before treatment, in order to obtain stable long-term efficacy.