School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, UK.
Eur J Orthod. 2010 Apr;32(2):171-6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp075. Epub 2009 Dec 3.
The aim of this trial was to evaluate whether a Nance or Goshgarian palatal arch was most effective for prevention of mesial drift, distal tipping, prevention of mesio-palatal rotation of the upper first permanent molars, and patient comfort and ease of removal. Patients were recruited from a district general hospital and a specialist orthodontic practice and randomly allocated to a Goshgarian (n = 29) or a Nance (n = 28) group. Pre-treatment study models (T1) were taken followed by the placement of the palatal arch, premolar extractions, and upper and lower fixed appliances. The clinical end point was 6 months (T2), at which time, an impression for an upper study model was taken. The amount of upper first permanent molar mesial movement, distal tipping, and mesio-palatal rotation was measured by scanning T1 and T2 study models and then using a software program to calculate molar changes. In addition, the patients recorded their discomfort scores using a seven-point Likert scale at each recall visit. Forty-nine patients (86 per cent) completed the trial. t-tests were used to compare molar movements between the Goshgarian and Nance palatal arch groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the palatal arches in terms of prevention of mesial drift or distal tipping (P > 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the amount of molar rotation between the arch types, with both exhibiting some disto-palatal rotation even though they were not activated for this movement. The Goshgarian palatal arch produced marginally more disto-palatal rotation than the Nance arch (P = 0.02), although this may not be considered clinically significant. A Mann-Whitney test revealed that there was also a statistically significant difference in pain scores between the Goshgarian and the Nance arch, with the latter being associated with more discomfort (P = 0.001). This trial did not support any preference in the use of the Goshgarian or Nance palatal arch, unless the slightly reduced patient discomfort with the Goshgarian arch is considered significant.
本试验旨在评估 Nance 或 Goshgarian 腭弓在预防上颌第一恒磨牙近中漂移、远中倾斜、预防近中-腭向旋转以及患者舒适度和拆除方便性方面的效果。患者来自一家地区综合医院和一家专业正畸诊所,随机分配到 Goshgarian(n=29)或 Nance(n=28)组。在放置腭弓、前磨牙拔除、上下固定矫治器之前,先进行治疗前模型(T1)。临床终点为 6 个月(T2),此时,取上颌研究模型的印模。通过扫描 T1 和 T2 研究模型,然后使用软件程序计算磨牙变化,来测量上颌第一恒磨牙的近中移动、远中倾斜和近中-腭向旋转的量。此外,患者在每次就诊时使用七点 Likert 量表记录他们的不适评分。49 名患者(86%)完成了试验。使用 t 检验比较 Goshgarian 和 Nance 腭弓组之间的磨牙运动。在预防近中漂移或远中倾斜方面,两种腭弓之间没有统计学上的显著差异(P>0.05)。尽管这两种弓型都没有被激活用于这种运动,但在磨牙旋转量方面存在统计学上的显著差异,两种弓型都有一定程度的远中腭向旋转。Goshgarian 腭弓产生的远中腭向旋转量略多于 Nance 腭弓(P=0.02),尽管这可能不被认为具有临床意义。曼-惠特尼检验显示,Goshgarian 腭弓和 Nance 腭弓之间的疼痛评分也存在统计学上的显著差异,后者与更多的不适相关(P=0.001)。本试验不支持使用 Goshgarian 或 Nance 腭弓的偏好,除非认为 Goshgarian 腭弓略微降低患者的不适具有显著意义。