口腔医学研究 ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (8): 747-751.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2022.08.010

• 口腔正畸学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

无托槽隐形矫治器非减数矫治安氏Ⅱ类1分类的临床疗效分析

郭人铭1, 董浩鑫1, 李艺博2, 刘盼明1, 李政泽1, 崔淑霞1*   

  1. 1.郑州大学第一附属医院口腔正畸科 河南 郑州 450000;
    2.郑州大学第一附属医院口腔颌面外科 河南 郑州 450000
  • 收稿日期:2021-11-04 出版日期:2022-08-28 发布日期:2022-08-24
  • 通讯作者: *崔淑霞,E-mail: cui-shuxia@163.com
  • 作者简介:郭人铭(1996~ ),女,河南人,硕士在读,主要从事口腔正畸临床研究。
  • 基金资助:
    河南省医学科技攻关计划省部共建项目(编号:SB201901002)河南省高等学校重点科研项目计划(编号:20A320080)

Clinical Effectiveness of Non-extraction Clear Aligner Therapy in Patients with Class Ⅱ Division 1 Malocclusion

GUO Renming1, DONG Haoxin1, LI Yibo2, LIU Panming1, LI Zhengze1, CUI Shuxia1*   

  1. 1. Department of Orthodontics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450000, China;
    2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450000, China
  • Received:2021-11-04 Online:2022-08-28 Published:2022-08-24

摘要: 目的: 探讨无托槽隐形矫治技术非减数矫治安氏Ⅱ类1分类患者的临床疗效。方法: 在2016年1月~2021年1月就诊于郑州大学第一附属医院口腔正畸科采用无托槽隐形矫治器(Clear Aligners)完成非减数矫治的安氏Ⅱ类1分类患者中选取符合排纳标准的患者共34例,年龄(20.1±7.2)岁。使用美国正畸学会客观评分系统(ABO-OGS)评价矫治效果,并通过分析矫治前后X线头影测量项目的变化,评价无托槽隐形矫治器的垂直向及支抗控制能力。结果: 根据ABO-OGS临床评测标准进行评价,34例使用无托槽隐形矫治器完成非减数矫治的安氏Ⅱ类1分类病例通过率为55.88%,可能通过率为97.06%。与矫治前相比,U6-PP距、U1-PP角减小,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。SN-MP角、SN-OP角、SN-PP角、S-Go/N-Me矫治前后无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论: 采用无托槽隐形矫治器非减数矫治均角安氏Ⅱ类1分类患者临床疗效良好,垂直向及支抗控制能力佳。

关键词: 无托槽隐形矫治器, 安氏Ⅱ类1分类, 非减数矫治

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of non-extraction Clear Aligner therapy in patients with Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion. Methods: From January 2016 to January 2021, 34 patients who received non-extraction Clear Aligner therapy and with Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University were selected. Based on American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System, the orthodontic outcomes were evaluated. The lateral cephalograms were measured and analyzed. Results: Based on American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System, the passing rate was 55.88% and the possible passing rate was 97.06%. There were statistically significant decreases in U6-PP(mm) and U1-PP(°) after the treatment (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference in measurements of SN-MP, SN-OP, S-Go/N-Me, and SN-PP (P>0.05). Conclusion: Non-extraction Clear Aligner therapy in patients with average-angle Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion could receive satisfactory results.

Key words: Clear Aligners, class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion, non-extraction treatment