Cançado Rodrigo Hermont, Pinzan Arnaldo, Janson Guilherme, Henriques José Fernando Castanha, Neves Leniana Santos, Canuto Conceição Eunice
Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Feb;133(2):245-53; quiz 328.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.03.042.
The purpose of this study was to compare the occlusal outcomes and the efficiency of 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols in Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Treatment efficiency was defined as a change in the occlusal characteristics in a shorter treatment time.
Class II Division 1 subjects (n = 139) were divided into 2 groups according to the treatment protocol for Class II correction. Group 1 comprised 78 patients treated with a 1-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 12.51 and 14.68 years. Group 2 comprised 61 patients treated with a 2-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 11.21 and 14.70 years. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at the pretreatment stage to evaluate morphological differences in the groups. The initial and final study models of the patients were evaluated by using the peer assessment rating index. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences between the 2 groups for categorical variables. Variables regarding occlusal results were compared by using independent t tests. A linear regression analysis was completed, with total treatment time as the dependent variable, to identify clinical factors that predict treatment length for patients with Class II malocclusions.
Similar occlusal outcomes were obtained between the 1-phase and the 2-phase treatment protocols, but the duration of treatment was significantly shorter in the 1-phase treatment protocol group.
Treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions is more efficient with the 1-phase than the 2-phase treatment protocol.
本研究的目的是比较安氏II类1分类错牙合畸形采用1期和2期治疗方案的咬合结果及治疗效率。治疗效率定义为在更短治疗时间内咬合特征的改变。
根据II类错牙合矫治方案，将安氏II类1分类错牙合畸形患者（n = 139）分为2组。第1组包括78例患者，采用1期治疗方案，初始平均年龄和最终平均年龄分别为12.51岁和14.68岁。第2组包括61例患者，采用2期治疗方案，初始平均年龄和最终平均年龄分别为11.21岁和14.70岁。在治疗前阶段拍摄头颅侧位片，以评估两组的形态学差异。采用同伴评估评分指数对患者的初始和最终研究模型进行评估。卡方检验用于检验两组分类变量之间的差异。采用独立t检验比较咬合结果相关变量。以总治疗时间为因变量进行线性回归分析，以确定预测安氏II类错牙合畸形患者治疗时长的临床因素。
1期和2期治疗方案获得了相似的咬合结果，但1期治疗方案组的治疗持续时间明显更短。
对于安氏II类1分类错牙合畸形的治疗，1期治疗方案比2期治疗方案更有效。
