Pakshir Hamidreza, Mokhtar Ali, Darnahal Alireza, Kamali Zinat, Behesti Mohammad Hadi, Jamilian Abdolreza
Orthodontic Research Center, Shiraz University School of Dentistry, Shiraz, Iran.
Department of Orthodontics, Tehran Dental Branch, Craniofacial Research Center, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Turk J Orthod. 2017 Mar;30(1):15-20. doi: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2017.1604. Epub 2017 Mar 1.
The present study aimed to compare dentoskeletal changes in mandibular-deficient patients treated with Bionator and Farmand appliances.
This study included 54 subjects treated for class II division I malocclusion. All subjects fulfilled the following criteria: ANB>5°, SNB<77°, and overjet >5 mm. The Bionator group consisted of 27 patients (15 girls, 12 boys) with the mean age of 11 (SD 1) years and the Farmand group consisted of 27 patients (17 girls, 10 boys) with the mean age of 11.1 (SD 1.4) years. Statistical analyses were performed using t-test, paired t-test, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney test.
In the Farmand group, SNB significantly increased from 74.3° (SD 1.7) to 77.6° (SD 2.3) and ANB decreased by 3.2° (SD 1.7) (p<0.001). In the Bionator group, SNB significantly increased from 75.5° (SD 0.9) to 79° (SD 0.9), and ANB decreased by 3.3° (SD 1.3) (p<0.001). The increase in IMPA showed that the lower incisors were significantly tipped using both appliances. T-test did not show any significant differences between the two groups.
Despite the different designs of the appliances, both were successful in the treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion in mandibular-deficient patients.
本研究旨在比较使用Bionator矫治器和Farmand矫治器治疗的下颌发育不足患者的牙颌面变化。
本研究纳入了54例接受安氏II类1分类错牙合治疗的受试者。所有受试者均符合以下标准:ANB>5°,SNB<77°,覆盖>5 mm。Bionator组由27例患者(15名女孩,12名男孩)组成,平均年龄为11(标准差1)岁;Farmand组由27例患者(17名女孩,10名男孩)组成,平均年龄为11.1(标准差1.4)岁。采用t检验、配对t检验、Wilcoxon检验和Mann-Whitney检验进行统计分析。
在Farmand组中,SNB从74.3°(标准差1.7)显著增加到77.6°(标准差2.3),ANB降低了3.2°(标准差1.7)(p<0.001)。在Bionator组中,SNB从75.5°(标准差0.9)显著增加到79°(标准差0.9),ANB降低了3.3°(标准差1.3)(p<0.001)。IMPA的增加表明,使用两种矫治器时下切牙均显著前倾。t检验未显示两组之间有任何显著差异。
尽管矫治器设计不同,但二者在治疗下颌发育不足患者的安氏II类1分类错牙合方面均取得了成功。