Empower自锁托槽治疗安氏II1拔牙病例的疗效评价

上海口腔医学 ›› 2013, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (3): 316-321.

Empower自锁托槽治疗安氏II1拔牙病例的疗效评价

陈析华 ¹，华咏梅²，谢兴潜¹，俞晓佳¹，王健¹，刘李明¹

(1.上海市奉贤区奉城医院口腔科，上海 201411；2.同济大学附属口腔医院正畸科，上海 200072)

收稿日期:2012-12-28 修回日期:2013-01-28 出版日期:2013-06-10 发布日期:2013-06-10
通讯作者: 谢兴潜, E-mail:18918261055@189.cn
作者简介:陈析华(1976-), 男, 硕士研究生,主治医师,Tel:021-57520562，E-mail:loveronion@sina.com
基金资助:
上海市卫生局青年科研项目(2010Y155)

Clinical study of extraction treatment of Class II division I malocclusion with Empower self-ligating brackets

CHEN Xi-hua¹, HUA Yong-mei², XIE Xing-qian¹, YU Xiao-jia¹, WANG Jian¹, LIU Li-ming¹

1.Department of Dentistry, Fengcheng Hospital in Fengxian District. Shanghai 201411; 2. Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, Tongji University. Shanghai 200072, China

Received:2012-12-28 Revised:2013-01-28 Online:2013-06-10 Published:2013-06-10
Supported by:
Supported by Youth Research Project of Shanghai Municipal Health Bureau(2010Y155).

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：初步评价并比较Empower互动式自锁托槽和传统托槽矫治安氏II1拔牙病例的疗效。方法：选择40例安氏II类I分类错畸形患者，随机分为A、B 2组。A组20例，使用Empower自锁托槽矫治技术；B组20例，使用MBT矫治技术。2组均减数4颗第一前磨牙，未使用任何增强支抗装置，分别记录其矫治时间，有效复诊次数及椅旁操作时间，并在治疗前(T0)和治疗后(T1)拍摄X线头颅侧位定位片进行测量分析。采用SPSS 13.0软件包对测量数据进行t检验。结果：A组治疗时间和有效复诊次数均多于B组,但2组间差异无显著性。A组比B组椅旁操作时间平均减少151.15s。矫治后，2组均发生明显变化，表现为上、下前牙内收，凸面型改善。U1-SN角、U1-NA角、L1-MP角，L1-NB角、UI-PTV、LI-PTV、UL-EP距、LL-EP距减小，治疗前、后变化均有显著差异(P<0.05)，但组间变化均无显著性(P>0.05)。UM-PTV组间差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论：对于安氏II类I分类拔牙病例，Empower自锁托槽与传统托槽相比，可节省椅旁操作时间，有效控制前牙转矩和后牙支抗，但不能缩短矫治疗程及减少有效复诊次数。

关键词: Empower自锁托槽, 安氏II类I分类错畸形, 拔牙矫治

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the treatment efficiency of Empower interactive self-ligating brackets and traditional brackets in Class II division I extraction patients. METHODS: Forty patients with Class II division I malocclusion were randomly divided into 2 groups. Twenty patients received Empower self-ligating technique (group A) and the other 20 patients received MBT technique (group B). Four first premolars were extracted and without any other anchorage devices added in both groups. The duration of treatment, the number of visits and chair-side time were recorded. Cephalometric analysis was performed before and after treatment. The data was analyzed with SPSS 13.0 software package for paired t test. RESULTS: Treatment time and number of visits in group A were more than in group B, but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. Chair-side time in group A reduced 151.15s on average compared with group B. Significant changes were observed in both groups after treatment. Upper and lower anterior teeth retracted and convex profile improved.U1-SN, U1-NA, L1-MP, L1-NB, UI-PTV, LI-PTV, UL-EP, LL-EP decreased. Significant differences were found in UM-PTV between the 2 groups(P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional brackets, Empower self-ligating brackets can save chair-side time, control anterior teeth torque and posterior teeth anchorage effectively, but can not reduce the treatment time or number of visits.

Key words: Empower self-ligating brackets, Class II division I malocclusion, Extraction treatment

中图分类号:

R783.5

陈析华 , 华咏梅, 谢兴潜, 俞晓佳, 王健, 刘李明. Empower自锁托槽治疗安氏II1拔牙病例的疗效评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2013, 22(3): 316-321.

CHEN Xi-hua, HUA Yong-mei, XIE Xing-qian, YU Xiao-jia, WANG Jian, LIU Li-ming. Clinical study of extraction treatment of Class II division I malocclusion with Empower self-ligating brackets[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2013, 22(3): 316-321.

参考文献

[1] Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review[J]. Angle Orthod, 2010, 80(3): 575-584.
[2] Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets[J]. Clin Orthod Res, 2001, 4(4): 228-234.
[3] DiBiase AT, Nasr IH, Scott P, et al. Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2011, 139(2): e111-116.
[4] Johansson K, Lundstr?m F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets: a prospective randomized clinical trial[J]. Angle Orthod,2012,82 (5): 929-934.
[5] Valant JR. Time: a self-ligating interactive bracket system[J]. Semin Orthod, 2008, 14(1): 46-53.
[6] Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency[J]. Clin Orthod Res, 2001, 4(4): 220-227.
[7] Miles PG. Self-ligating vs. conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2007, 132(2): 223-225.
[8] 孙晓蕾, 刘新强, 陈秀娟. 自锁矫治器与传统结扎式矫治器用于拔牙矫治效率对比研究[J].中国实用口腔科杂志,2011,4(3): 162-164.
[9] Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2010, 137(6): 738-742.
[10] 刘丛华, 缪耀强, 李兰超. 3种不同弓丝结扎方式的椅旁时间对比研究[J]. 口腔正畸学, 2004, 11(1): 19-21.
[11] 戴红卫, 张定铭, 吴杨, 等. Damon3TM矫治器与传统结扎式矫治器的临床对比研究[J]. 重庆医科大学学报, 2007, 32(5): 537-539.
[12] Berger J, Byloff FK. The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets[J]. J Clin Orthod, 2001, 35(5): 304-308.
[13] Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2007, 131(3): 395-399.
[14] Garino F, Favero L. Control of tooth movements with the Speed system[J]. Prog Orthod, 2003, 4(1): 23-30.
[15] Pandis N, Strigou S, Eliades T. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a prospective clinical trial[J]. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2006, 9(4): 193-198.