• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[Comparison of treatment results between implant anchorage and traditional intraoral anchorage in patients with maxillary protrusion].

作者信息

Ma Ning, Li Wei-Ran, Chen Xiao-Hong, Zheng Xu

机构信息

Department of Stomatology, Peking University Third Hospital. Beijing 100191, China. E-mail:

出版信息

Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2016 Aug;25(4):475-480.

PMID:27858074
Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the treatment effects in patients with maxillary protrusion between implant anchorage and traditional intraoral anchorage.

METHODS

Thirty patients with maxillary protrusion treated with bilateral maxillary first premolars extractions and high anchorage were selected. They were randomly divided into implant anchorage group and traditional intraoral anchorage group. Each group had 15 cases. The casts and the cephalograms were obtained before treatment (T1) and after treatment (T2). Three-dimensional model analysis was used to compare the teeth movements between the two groups and cephalometric analysis was used to compare the changes of skeletal and soft tissues. The differences were analyzed with SPSS 17.0 software package.

RESULTS

In the implant anchorage group, the upper central incisors were retracted by (6.661±1.328) mm and intruded by (0.129±1.815) mm. In the traditional intraoral anchorage group, the upper central incisors were retracted by (5.788±2.009) mm and extruded by (2.623±1.776) mm. There was no significant difference between the two groups in sagittal movement (P>0.05), but there was significant difference in vertical movement (P<0.05). In the implant anchorage group, the upper first molars were protracted by (0.608±1.045) mm, intruded by (0.608±1.045) mm and moved palatally by (0.477±0.904) mm. In the traditional intraoral anchorage group, the upper first molars were protracted by (1.503±0.945) mm, extruded by (0.072±0.690) mm and moved palatally by (0.883±0.752)mm. There was significant difference between the two groups in sagittal movement and vertical movement (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in horizontal movement(P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the changes of cephalometric measurements of skeletal and soft tissues (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant anchorage may be superior in vertical control of the maxillary incisors and also superior in sagittal and vertical control of the maxillary molars to traditional intraoral anchorage during management of maxillary protrusion.

摘要

相似文献

1
[Comparison of treatment results between implant anchorage and traditional intraoral anchorage in patients with maxillary protrusion].
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2016 Aug;25(4):475-480.
2
[Comparison of treatment outcomes in patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion by applying different anchorage methods: a three-dimensional model study].[应用不同支抗方法治疗上颌牙牙槽突前突患者的疗效比较:三维模型研究]
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2015 Feb;33(1):63-6. doi: 10.7518/hxkq.2015.01.014.
3
Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.成人上颌牙牙槽骨前突患者使用骨锚固与口外锚固治疗效果的比较。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Nov;134(5):615-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.12.022.
4
Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study.微型种植体支抗用于上颌前牙整体后移:一项临床头影测量研究
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Dec;134(6):803-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.025.
5
[An efficacy comparison between mini-screw implant and transpalatal arch on dentofacial morphology in extraction cases].[拔牙病例中微型螺钉种植体与横腭杆对牙颌面形态影响的疗效比较]
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2009 Aug;44(8):454-9.
6
Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage.上颌前突牙列治疗效果的三维牙科模型分析:头帽、微螺钉和微型钛板骨锚固的比较
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Nov;134(5):636-45. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.017.
7
Midpalatal miniscrews and high-pull headgear for anteroposterior and vertical anchorage control: cephalometric comparisons of treatment changes.中 palate 微型植入钉和高拉头帽用于前后向和垂直支抗控制:治疗变化的头影测量比较。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Aug;144(2):238-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.03.020.
8
[Cephalometric analysis of implant anchorage-assisted retraction of anterior teeth].
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2008 Feb;17(1):20-4.
9
Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion.比较在双颌前突的成年患者中应用微型种植体支抗或腭弓开展主动正畸治疗后,头影测量参数的差异。
J Oral Rehabil. 2009 Sep;36(9):687-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01976.x. Epub 2009 Jul 9.
10
Treatment effects of intrusion arches and mini-implant systems in deepbite patients.深覆合患者中推磨牙向后与微型种植体支抗系统的治疗效果。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Jun;141(6):723-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.024.

引用本文的文献

1
The Efficacy of Orthodontics plus Implant Anchorage in Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Study.正畸联合种植支抗在正畸治疗中的疗效:一项随机对照研究。
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2022 May 30;2022:4049076. doi: 10.1155/2022/4049076. eCollection 2022.
2
Anchorage in Orthodontics: Three-dimensional Scanner Input.正畸学中的支抗:三维扫描仪输入
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2018 Jan-Feb;8(1):6-11. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_422_17. Epub 2018 Jan 9.