Suppr超能文献

两种上颌磨牙远移矫治器与远中喷射器的比较。

A comparison of two maxillary molar distalizing appliances with the distal jet.

作者信息

Ferguson Donald J, Carano Aldo, Bowman S Jay, Davis Edward C, Gutierrez Vega Maria E, Lee Sandra H

机构信息

Department of Orthodontics, Boston University Goldman School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

World J Orthod. 2005 Winter;6(4):382-90.

Abstract

AIMS

Previous studies on maxillary molar distalization have usually concentrated on only one appliance and featured small sample sizes. The purpose of this retrospective study was two-fold: (1) to determine the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of 3 molar distalization appliances, 2 of which do not depend upon patient compliance (ie, distal jet and Greenfield molar distalizing appliance) and 1 that does (ie, sagittal appliance combined with cervical headgear); and (2) to determine differences in treatment effects among the 3 appliances.

METHODS

Pretreatment and post-distalization cephalometric radiographs were obtained for each appliance (14 females and 11 males for the distal jet; 12 females and 13 males for the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance; and 17 females and 13 males for the sagittal appliance with headgear).

RESULTS

Pretreatment to transition evaluation showed significant distal movement of the first molars for the distal jet (3.4 mm), the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance (3.9 mm), and the sagittal appliance with headgear (2.1 mm). Distal tipping of the first molar was seen in all samples, but significantly more so in the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance (6.5 degrees +/- 6.6) and the sagittal appliance with headgear (13.5 degrees +/- 8. 1) than in the distal jet (3.2 degrees +/- 2.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Maxillary molar distalization was effective using the distal jet, the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance, and the sagittal appliance with headgear, but better control of molar bodily movement was reported with the distal jet.

摘要

目的

以往关于上颌磨牙远移的研究通常仅聚焦于一种矫治器,且样本量较小。本回顾性研究的目的有两个:(1)确定三种磨牙远移矫治器对骨骼、牙齿和软组织的影响,其中两种不依赖患者配合(即远中喷射器和格林菲尔德磨牙远移矫治器),一种依赖患者配合(即矢状矫治器联合颈带);(2)确定这三种矫治器治疗效果的差异。

方法

获取每种矫治器远移前和远移后的头颅侧位片(远中喷射器组14名女性和11名男性;格林菲尔德磨牙远移矫治器组12名女性和13名男性;矢状矫治器联合颈带组17名女性和13名男性)。

结果

从治疗前到过渡阶段的评估显示,远中喷射器组第一磨牙显著远移(3.4毫米),格林菲尔德磨牙远移矫治器组(3.9毫米),矢状矫治器联合颈带组(2.1毫米)。所有样本中均可见第一磨牙远中倾斜,但格林菲尔德磨牙远移矫治器组(6.5度±6.6)和矢状矫治器联合颈带组(13.5度±8.1)比远中喷射器组(3.2度±2.8)更为明显。

结论

使用远中喷射器、格林菲尔德磨牙远移矫治器和矢状矫治器联合颈带进行上颌磨牙远移均有效,但远中喷射器对磨牙整体移动的控制更佳。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验