Hejne Arletta Julita
Z Katedry i Zakładu Ortodoncji Pomorskiej Akademii Medycznej w Szczecinie, al. Powstańców Wielkopolskich 72, 70-111 Szczecin.
Ann Acad Med Stetin. 2003;49:277-89.
Examination of pulp vitality is a valuable aid in diagnosis and treatment and thus has been in use for a long time. Numerous factors influencing the pain threshold have been found including occlusal interferences. The effect of EOI (Experimental Occlusal Interferences) has been described, while the effect of primary occlusal interference awaits further investigation. The aim of this work was to evaluate the influence of malocclusion (primary occlusal interference) on pulp vitality. At first, the pattern of bite forces in normal occlusion was established. For this purpose, 20 individuals were examined. The following results were found: (a) Bite forces on the right and left side are symmetrical; (b) Total bite forces are distributed as follows: (I) upper half arch: medial incisor 6.3%, lateral incisor 2.9%, canine 3.6%, first premolar 10.4%, second premolar 11.7%, first molar 29.4%, second molar 23.8%; (II) lower half arch: medial incisor 4.1%, lateral incisor 4%, canine 4.8%, first premolar 9%, second premolar 15.1%, first molar 27.3%, second molar 29.7% (Fig. 4). Next, 83 patients with unilateral malocclusion were subjected to clinical examination (orthodontic diagnosis) and measurement of bite forces (with T-Scan system). A computer program was used to establish bite forces (in %) for each tooth. 576 teeth were divided into 9 groups in accordance with the orthodontic diagnosis as follows: class II tendency (n = 126), cross-bite (n = 50), rotated (n = 30), scissors bite (n = 23), class III tendency (n = 19), class II (n = 16), open bite (n = 15), class III (n = 9), normal occlusion (n = 288). Each tooth in malocclusion was assigned a contralateral "control" tooth (Fig. 5). Bite forces acting on teeth in malocclusion were compared with control teeth using Student's t-test (Fig. 6). There is no difference between bite forces of teeth in normal occlusion and malocclusion on the opposite side of dental arches in the same patient, the only exceptions being open and cross-bite. Bite force values obtained in a group with normal occlusion and those reported by Blamphin, Kochańska and Gidzińska-Głódkowska formed parallel lines (Fig. 7). Pulp vitality threshold was measured at the buccal and occlusal side in all teeth of the group of 83 patients. Measurements were performed using Ez-Test (Satelec). The results are summarized in Table I.
牙髓活力检查在诊断和治疗中是一项有价值的辅助手段,因此已使用很长时间。已发现许多影响痛阈的因素,包括咬合干扰。实验性咬合干扰(EOI)的影响已被描述,而原发性咬合干扰的影响有待进一步研究。这项工作的目的是评估错牙合(原发性咬合干扰)对牙髓活力的影响。首先,确定正常咬合时的咬合力模式。为此,对20名个体进行了检查。发现以下结果:(a)右侧和左侧的咬合力是对称的;(b)总咬合力分布如下:(I)上半牙弓:中切牙6.3%,侧切牙2.9%,尖牙3.6%,第一前磨牙10.4%,第二前磨牙11.7%,第一磨牙29.4%,第二磨牙23.8%;(II)下半牙弓:中切牙4.1%,侧切牙4%,尖牙4.8%,第一前磨牙9%,第二前磨牙15.1%,第一磨牙27.3%,第二磨牙29.7%(图4)。接下来,对83名单侧错牙合患者进行临床检查(正畸诊断)和咬合力测量(使用T-Scan系统)。使用计算机程序确定每颗牙齿的咬合力(以%表示)。根据正畸诊断,576颗牙齿分为9组如下:II类倾向(n = 126),反牙合(n = 50),扭转(n = 30),剪刀牙合(n = 23),III类倾向(n = 19),II类(n = 16),开牙合(n = 15),III类(n = 9),正常咬合(n = 288)。错牙合中的每颗牙齿都指定了一颗对侧“对照”牙(图5)。使用学生t检验比较错牙合中作用于牙齿的咬合力与对照牙(图6)。在同一患者牙弓对侧,正常咬合和错牙合牙齿的咬合力之间没有差异,唯一的例外是开牙合和反牙合。在正常咬合组中获得的咬合力值与Blamphin、Kochańska和Gidzińska-Głódkowska报告的值形成平行线(图7)。在83名患者组的所有牙齿的颊侧和咬合侧测量牙髓活力阈值。使用Ez-Test(Satelec)进行测量。结果总结在表I中。