Türkkahraman Hakan, Sayin M Ozgür
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Suleyman Demirel, Isparta, Turkey.
Eur J Orthod. 2006 Feb;28(1):27-34. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cji062. Epub 2005 Aug 10.
The aims of this study were to determine whether the activator and activator headgear encourage mandibular growth, and whether there is any superiority of one appliance over the other or if the resultant changes are due to normal growth. Forty-nine skeletal Class II division 1 patients were selected. Thirty-three (13 females, 20 males; mean age 12.52 +/- 1.42 years) were treated with an Andresen activator and the remaining 16 (7 females, 9 males; mean age 13.04 +/- 1.47 years) with an activator headgear combination. Twenty Class II subjects (9 females, 11 males; mean age 12.57 +/- 1.11 years) who had previously refused treatment served as a control group. Cephalometric landmarks were marked and digitized by one author to avoid inter-observer variability. Nine angular and 12 linear measurements were established and measured using Vistadent AT software. A paired-sample t-test and an ANOVA test were used to statistically evaluate the findings. The results revealed that both the activator and the activator headgear combination significantly (P < 0.001) encouraged mandibular growth, but had little restraining effect on the maxilla. The mandibular incisors were more controlled in the activator headgear combination group. The resultant skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes differed significantly from those due to growth.
本研究的目的是确定肌激动器和肌激动器-头帽是否能促进下颌生长，一种矫治器是否比另一种具有优势，或者所产生的变化是否是由于正常生长所致。选取了49例骨骼型Ⅱ类1分类患者。其中33例（13例女性，20例男性；平均年龄12.52±1.42岁）采用Andresen肌激动器进行治疗，其余16例（7例女性，9例男性；平均年龄13.04±1.47岁）采用肌激动器-头帽联合矫治。20例Ⅱ类受试者（9例女性，11例男性；平均年龄12.57±1.11岁），他们之前拒绝治疗，作为对照组。由一位作者标记并数字化头影测量标志点，以避免观察者间的差异。使用Vistadent AT软件建立并测量9个角度和12个线性测量指标。采用配对样本t检验和方差分析对结果进行统计学评估。结果显示，肌激动器和肌激动器-头帽联合矫治均能显著促进下颌生长（P<0.001），但对上颌的抑制作用较小。在肌激动器-头帽联合矫治组中，下颌切牙得到了更好的控制。所产生的骨骼、牙-牙槽和软组织变化与生长所致的变化有显著差异。
