Suppr超能文献

传统矫正器与自锁矫正器对青少年非拔牙患者下颌磨牙间距离影响的对比评估:一项单中心随机对照试验。

Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

出版信息

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Sep;140(3):e99-e105. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.019.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Our aim in this study was to compare intermolar widths after alignment of crowded mandibular dental arches in nonextraction adolescent patients between conventional and self-ligating brackets.

METHODS

Fifty patients were included in this randomized controlled trial according to the following inclusion criteria: nonextraction treatment in both arches, eruption of all mandibular teeth, no spaces in the mandibular arch, mandibular irregularity index from canine to canine greater than 2 mm, and no therapeutic intervention planned involving intermaxillary or other intraoral or extraoral appliances including elastics before the end of the observation period. The patients were randomized into 2 groups: the first received a conventional appliance, and the other a passive self-ligating appliance, both with a 0.022-in slot. The amount of crowding of the mandibular dentition at baseline was assessed by using the irregularity index. Intermolar width was investigated with statistical methods of linear regression analysis. On an exploratory basis, the effect of appliance type on intercanine width was also assessed. Additionally, the effects of appliance type on time to alignment and crowding on time to alignment were assessed by using the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

No evidence of difference in intermolar width was found between the 2 bracket systems (β = 0.30; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.9; P = 0.30). No evidence of difference in intercanine width was observed between the 2 bracket systems (β = 0.33; 95% CI, -0.8 to 0.1; P = 0.15). The time to reach alignment did not differ between appliance systems (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.4 to 1.2; P = 0.21), whereas the amount of crowding was a significant predictor of the required time to reach alignment (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.8 to 0.9; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of conventional or self-ligating brackets does not seem to be an important predictor of mandibular intermolar width in nonextractions patients when the same wire sequence is used.

摘要

简介

本研究旨在比较非拔牙青少年患者拥挤下颌牙弓排齐后传统托槽和自锁托槽的尖牙间宽度。

方法

根据以下纳入标准,本随机对照试验纳入了 50 名患者:双颌均为非拔牙治疗,下颌所有牙齿均已萌出,下颌牙弓无间隙,从尖牙到尖牙的下颌不齐指数大于 2mm,在观察期结束前,计划不涉及颌间或其他口内或口外矫治器的治疗干预,包括橡皮圈。患者随机分为 2 组:第 1 组使用传统托槽,第 2 组使用被动自锁托槽,均使用 0.022 英寸槽。使用不齐指数评估下颌牙列的拥挤程度。采用线性回归分析的统计方法研究尖牙间宽度。基于探索性分析,还评估了矫治器类型对上颌尖牙间宽度的影响。此外,使用 Cox 比例风险模型评估矫治器类型对上颌排齐时间和拥挤对上颌排齐时间的影响。

结果

两种托槽系统的尖牙间宽度无差异(β=0.30;95%CI,-0.3 至 0.9;P=0.30)。两种托槽系统的尖牙间宽度无差异(β=0.33;95%CI,-0.8 至 0.1;P=0.15)。两种矫治器系统的排齐时间无差异(风险比,0.68;95%CI,0.4 至 1.2;P=0.21),而拥挤程度是达到排齐所需时间的重要预测因素(风险比,0.88;95%CI,0.8 至 0.9;P=0.02)。

结论

在使用相同弓丝序列时,对于非拔牙患者,使用传统托槽或自锁托槽似乎不是下颌尖牙间宽度的重要预测因素。

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