Suppr超能文献

摩擦力和无摩擦力学在整体回缩过程中的速度和固位丢失:一项随机临床试验。

Rate and anchorage loss during en-masse retraction between friction and frictionless mechanics: A randomized clinical trial.

机构信息

Section of Orthodontics, Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.

出版信息

Orthod Craniofac Res. 2023 Nov;26(4):598-607. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12656. Epub 2023 Mar 23.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare rate and anchorage loss during en-masse retraction of anterior maxillary teeth between friction mechanics (FM) and frictionless mechanics (FLM).

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

Thirty-eight patients requiring en-masse retraction of protruded anterior maxillary teeth were randomly allocated into FM and FLM groups.

METHODS

En-masse retraction with sliding mechanics (FM) using an elastomeric chain was compared with continuous mushroom loop archwire mechanics (FLM). Study models and lateral cephalograms were taken before (T1) and immediately after retraction (T2). The primary outcome was the rate of en-masse retraction. Anchorage loss was the secondary outcome. Intergroup comparison was performed using an independent t test (P < .05).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Thirty-six patients completed the trial. Two patients were lost to follow-up in the FLM group. The rate of en-masse retraction did not differ significantly (P = .625) between FM (0.7 mm/mo) and FLM (0.8 mm/mo) groups. The intragroup comparison showed significant anchorage loss in FM (2.28 mm) and FLM (1.13 mm) groups; however, the intergroup comparison showed no statistically significant difference (P = .093). Maxillary first molar showed a statistically significant change in angulation between the two mechanic groups (P < .001). Vertical movement of the maxillary incisor and first molar showed no significant difference between FM and FLM groups (P = .143, P = .546, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of en-masse retraction and anchorage loss was comparable between the FM and FLM groups. Significant anchorage loss was seen with both mechanics. The result suggests that both the mechanic group require external reinforcement to prevent anchorage loss.

摘要

目的

比较前牙整体内收中摩擦力机制(FM)和无摩擦力机制(FLM)的速度和支抗损失。

设置和样本人群

38 名需要前上颌前突牙齿整体内收的患者被随机分配到 FM 和 FLM 组。

方法

使用弹性链的整体内收滑动机制(FM)与连续蘑菇圈弓丝机制(FLM)进行比较。在治疗前(T1)和即刻内收后(T2)拍摄研究模型和侧位头颅侧位片。主要结果是整体内收的速度。支抗损失是次要结果。使用独立 t 检验(P<.05)进行组间比较。

结果

两组的基线特征相似。36 名患者完成了试验。FLM 组有 2 名患者失访。FM 组(0.7mm/月)和 FLM 组(0.8mm/月)的整体内收速度无显著差异(P=0.625)。组内比较显示 FM 组(2.28mm)和 FLM 组(1.13mm)均有明显的支抗损失;然而,组间比较无统计学差异(P=0.093)。上颌第一磨牙在两组力学机制之间的角度变化有统计学意义(P<.001)。上颌切牙和第一磨牙的垂直移动在 FM 和 FLM 组之间无显著差异(P=0.143,P=0.546)。

结论

FM 和 FLM 组的整体内收速度和支抗损失相当。两种力学机制都有明显的支抗损失。结果表明,两种力学机制都需要外部加固以防止支抗损失。

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