论文部分内容阅读
目的对比应用方丝弓矫治器与直丝弓矫治器关闭拔牙间隙恢复时间,评价方丝弓矫治器与直丝弓矫治器的临床治疗效果。方法选取2002-2004年间应用方丝弓或者直丝弓完成双颌固定矫治器治疗的正畸患者60例,利用PAR指数对患者治疗前后模型进行测量,并记录患者治疗前后的PAR总分值及差值,将患者按照拔牙或非拔牙正畸治疗方式结合治疗前测量PAR总分值相同者分成方丝弓组和直丝弓组,每组30例,对两组患者的测量数据进行统计学分析;结果两种治疗方法在关闭拔牙间隙时在所用时间上相比直丝弓组比方丝弓组疗程要短,直丝弓组后牙排列效果比方丝弓组好,PAR分值较方丝弓组低(P<0.01),直丝弓组治疗疗程平均缩短了近4个月。两组患者治疗后其余各项PAR分值和患者治疗前后的PAR差值均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论直丝弓矫治器在治疗关闭拔牙间隙过程中对牙齿排列定位较准确,治疗疗程上较方丝弓矫治器短,矫治效率比方丝弓高。
Objective To evaluate the clinical effect of square wire appliance and straight wire appliance by using square wire appliance and straight appliance. Methods Sixty cases of orthodontic patients who underwent orthopedic fixation with bilateral arch or straight arch wire between 2002 and 2004 were selected. The PAR index was used to measure the model before and after treatment. The total score of PAR before and after treatment was recorded. Difference, the patients according to the method of extraction or non-extraction of orthodontic treatment combined with pre-treatment measurement of the same total score of PAR was divided into Fang Si bow group and straight arch group, 30 cases in each group, the two groups of patients with statistical data Results Compared with the linear arch group, the shorter the length of time, the shorter the linear arch group, the shorter the arch teeth group than the arch arch group, and the PAR score was higher than that of the square arch group The bow group was lower (P <0.01), and the average length of the bowel group was shorter by nearly 4 months. After treatment, the remaining PAR scores and the patients’ PAR before and after treatment showed no significant difference (P> 0.05). Conclusions Straight wire appliance is more accurate in positioning and aligning the teeth during the process of closing the extraction gap. The treatment course is shorter than that of arch appliance, and the correction efficiency is higher than that of arch wire.