• 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

使用美国正畸委员会差异指数对一期正畸治疗效果进行定量评估。

Quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of phase 1 orthodontic treatment using the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index.

作者信息

Vasilakou Nefeli, Araujo Eustaquio A, Kim Ki Beom, Oliver Donald R

机构信息

Orthodontic resident, Department of Orthodontics, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Mo.

Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Mo.

出版信息

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Dec;150(6):997-1004. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.05.012.

DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.05.012
PMID:27894549
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study included a sample of 300 randomly selected patients from the archived records of Saint Louis University's graduate orthodontic clinic, St. Louis, Mo, from 1990 to 2012. The objective of this study was to quantify the changes obtained in phase 1 of orthodontic treatment and determine how much improvement, if any, has occurred before the initiation of the second phase.

METHODS

For the purpose of this study, prephase 1 and prephase 2 records of 300 subjects were gathered. All were measured using the American Board of Ortodontics Discrepancy Index (DI), and a score was given for each phase. The difference of the 2 scores indicated the quantitative change of the complexity of the treatment. Paired t tests were used to compare the scores. Additionally, the sample was categorized into 3 groups according to the Angle classifications, and the same statistics were used to identify significant changes between the 2 scores. Analysis of variance was applied to compare the 3 groups and determine which had the most change. Percentages of change were calculated for the significant scores.

RESULTS

The total DI score overall and the scores of all 3 groups were significantly reduced from before to after phase 1. Overall, 42% improvement was observed. The Class I group showed 49.3% improvement, the Class II group 34.5% and the Class III group 58.5%. Most components of the DI improved significantly, but a few showed negative changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant reductions of DI scores were observed in the total sample and in all Angle classification groups. This indicates that early treatment reduces the complexity of the malocclusions. Only 2 components of the DI showed statistically significant negative changes.

摘要

引言

这项回顾性研究从密苏里州圣路易斯市圣路易斯大学研究生正畸诊所1990年至2012年的存档记录中随机抽取了300名患者作为样本。本研究的目的是量化正畸治疗第一阶段所取得的变化,并确定在第二阶段开始之前是否有任何改善以及改善程度如何。

方法

为了本研究的目的,收集了300名受试者第一阶段前和第二阶段前的记录。所有记录均使用美国正畸委员会差异指数(DI)进行测量,并为每个阶段给出一个分数。两个分数的差值表明了治疗复杂性的定量变化。采用配对t检验来比较分数。此外,根据安氏分类将样本分为3组,并使用相同的统计方法来确定两个分数之间的显著变化。应用方差分析来比较这3组,并确定哪一组变化最大。计算显著分数的变化百分比。

结果

从第一阶段前到第一阶段后,总体DI总分以及所有3组的分数均显著降低。总体而言,观察到改善了42%。安氏I类组显示改善了49.3%,安氏II类组为34.5%,安氏III类组为58.5%。DI的大多数组成部分有显著改善,但有一些显示出负向变化。

结论

在总样本和所有安氏分类组中均观察到DI分数显著降低。这表明早期治疗降低了错牙合畸形的复杂性。DI中只有2个组成部分显示出具有统计学意义的负向变化。

相似文献

1
Quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of phase 1 orthodontic treatment using the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index.使用美国正畸委员会差异指数对一期正畸治疗效果进行定量评估。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Dec;150(6):997-1004. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.05.012.
2
Treatment outcomes in a graduate orthodontic clinic for cases defined by the American Board of Orthodontics malocclusion categories.一家研究生正畸诊所中,针对由美国正畸委员会错颌分类所定义病例的治疗结果。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Dec;132(6):822-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.05.036.
3
Treatment complexity index for assessing the relationship of treatment duration and outcomes in a graduate orthodontics clinic.用于评估研究生正畸诊所治疗时长与治疗结果关系的治疗复杂程度指数。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jan;133(1):9.e1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.012.
4
Evaluation of 3 retention protocols using the American Board of Orthodontics cast and radiograph evaluation.使用美国正畸协会的模型和 X 光片评估 3 种保持器留存方案。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Jul;144(1):16-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.02.022.
5
Comparison of prospectively and retrospectively selected American Board of Orthodontics cases.前瞻性和回顾性选择的美国正畸委员会病例比较。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jan;137(1):6.e1-8; discussion 6-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.016.
6
Comparison of university and private-practice orthodontic treatment outcomes with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.采用美国正畸委员会客观评分系统对大学正畸治疗结果与私人诊所正畸治疗结果进行比较。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Jun;127(6):707-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.014.
7
Long-term occlusal changes assessed by the American Board of Orthodontics' model grading system.长期的咬合变化,用美国正畸医师协会的模型分级系统来评估。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Feb;145(2):173-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.10.010.
8
Effectiveness of the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index in predicting Treatment Time.美国正畸委员会差异指数在预测治疗时间方面的有效性。
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Jun 1;19(6):647-650.
9
Assessing changes in quality of life using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) in patients with different classifications of malocclusion during comprehensive orthodontic treatment.在综合正畸治疗期间,使用口腔健康影响程度量表(OHIP)评估不同错牙合分类患者的生活质量变化。
BMC Oral Health. 2015 Nov 20;15:148. doi: 10.1186/s12903-015-0130-7.
10
University clinic and private practice treatment outcomes in Class I extraction and nonextraction patients: A comparative study with the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System.I类拔牙和非拔牙患者的大学诊所及私人诊所治疗效果:一项与美国正畸委员会客观评分系统的对比研究
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Feb;149(2):253-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.012.

引用本文的文献

1
Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study.早期治疗能否改善II类患者的临床结局?一项回顾性研究。
Children (Basel). 2022 Feb 9;9(2):232. doi: 10.3390/children9020232.
2
Comparison of early treatment outcomes rendered in three different types of malocclusions.三种不同类型错颌畸形的早期治疗效果比较。
Angle Orthod. 2018 May;88(3):253-258. doi: 10.2319/091417-618.1. Epub 2018 Mar 7.