Department of Orthodontics, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; National Center for Stomatology; National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology; Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, No. 639 Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai Huaguang Dental Clinic, 6C, No.201, Lane 3215, Hongmei Road, Shanghai, China.
BMC Oral Health. 2024 Oct 24;24(1):1272. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05041-8.
To compare the levels of functional impairments, discomfort and satisfaction experienced by those treated with full-mouth customized lingual appliances (Lingual appliances), full-mouth self-ligating bracket (Labial appliances), or upper lingual and lower labial appliances (Mixed appliances) using questionnaires.
Patients within one year of the end of treatment were included in the survey and given a questionnaire concerning different kinds of discomfort and difficulties during the treatment process. The questionnaires focused on the following aspects including speech difficulty, pain (lip, cheek or tongue), difficulty in chewing, difficulty in tooth brushing and overall aesthetics and comfortability. Ordinary one-way ANOVA Tukey's multiple comparison tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were employed to analyze the data.
A total of 115 patients participated in the study. In terms of functional impairments and discomfort, the rate and degree of speech difficulty was significantly higher in the Lingual appliances Group than that in the Labial appliances Group. But there was no difference among the three groups for difficulty in chewing and tooth brushing. Both lingual and labial appliances caused a similar level of overall pain, however, those treated with lingual appliances experienced more tongue pain, and those treated with labial appliances experienced more cheek and lip pain. The most common sites of irritation were the tongue lateral and tongue tip in the Lingual appliances Group, tongue lateral and cheek in the Mixed appliances Group, and cheek and lower lip in the Labial appliances Group. In total, patients gave highest scores to mixed appliances for comfortability and lowest scores to labial appliances for aesthetics when it came to satisfaction.
Lingual and labial appliances caused similar level of overall pain. Taking into account the overall comfortability, aesthetics and cost, the mixed appliances may be suitable for some patients who have aesthetic and comfort pursuits.
通过问卷调查比较使用全口定制舌侧矫治器（Lingual appliances）、全口自锁托槽（Labial appliances）或上舌侧和下唇侧矫治器（Mixed appliances）治疗的患者的功能障碍、不适和满意度水平。
纳入治疗结束后 1 年内的患者进行问卷调查，内容涉及治疗过程中的不同不适和困难。问卷重点关注以下方面：言语困难、唇、颊或舌疼痛、咀嚼困难、刷牙困难以及整体美观和舒适度。采用普通单因素方差分析 Tukey 多重比较检验和 Kruskal-Wallis 检验进行数据分析。
共有 115 名患者参与了研究。在功能障碍和不适方面，Lingual appliances 组的言语困难发生率和程度明显高于 Labial appliances 组。但在咀嚼和刷牙困难方面，三组之间无差异。舌侧和唇侧矫治器都引起相似程度的整体疼痛，但使用舌侧矫治器的患者舌痛更明显，使用唇侧矫治器的患者颊痛和唇痛更明显。Lingual appliances 组最常见的刺激部位是舌侧和舌尖，Mixed appliances 组是舌侧和颊部，Labial appliances 组是颊部和下唇。总的来说，在满意度方面，患者对混合矫治器的舒适度评分最高，对唇侧矫治器的美观评分最低。
舌侧和唇侧矫治器引起的整体疼痛程度相似。考虑到整体舒适度、美观和成本，混合矫治器可能适合一些对美观和舒适度有追求的患者。
