肌激动器联合不同口外弓施力点治疗儿童骨性II类错颌畸形的疗效研究

中华养生保健 ›› 2024, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (13): 5-8.

肌激动器联合不同口外弓施力点治疗儿童骨性II类错颌畸形的疗效研究

柯云艳¹, 张立港¹, 应丽珍¹, 陈学鹏^2,*

1.绍兴市中医院口腔科,浙江绍兴,312000;
2.浙江大学医学院附属口腔医院正畸科,浙江杭州,310006

出版日期:2024-07-01 发布日期:2024-06-25
通讯作者: ^*陈学鹏,E-mail：cxp1979@zju.edu.cn。
作者简介:柯云艳（1982—）,女,汉族,籍贯：浙江省绍兴市,本科,副主任医师,研究方向：正畸学。
基金资助:
绍兴市科技局课题（2018c30116）

Comparison of the Treatment Effectiveness between Two Vanbeek Activators with Different Load-Points of Extraoral Force in the Treatment of Children’s Skeletal Class Ⅱ Malocclusion

KE Yun-yan¹, ZHANG Li-gang¹, YING Li-zhen¹, CHEN Xue-peng^2,*

1. Department of Stomatology, Shaoxing Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shaoxing Zhejiang, 312000, China;
2. Orthodontics Department, Affiliated Stomatological Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou Zhejiang, 310006, China

Online:2024-07-01 Published:2024-06-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的研究肌激动器配合不同口外弓施力点治疗儿童骨性II类错颌畸形的疗效差异。方法收集2019年1月—2020年12月绍兴市中医院口腔科治疗的骨性II类错颌50例患儿作为研究对象,通过分发随机信封将其分为试验组与对照组,各25例。试验组使用改良头帽肌激动器（Vanbeek Activator）,口外弓位置前移自上中切牙及侧切牙间伸出基托;对照组使用传统Vanbeek Activator,口外弓自上颌第一、二前磨牙间伸出基托。收集患儿治疗前后头颅定位侧位片进行头影测量。结果治疗后试验组下颌平面角、前后面高比和上颌牙合平面角的减小量显著高于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;治疗后两组上颌矢状向位置（SNA角）、下颌矢状向位置（SNB角）、上下颌骨相对位置（ANB角）、Y轴角、下面高比例、上下中切牙角等比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论改良Vanbeek Activator的施力点位于上颌骨及上牙弓阻抗中心前部,可使上下颌骨发生一定程度逆时针旋转,有利于均角偏高角骨性II类错颌患儿的垂直向控制。

关键词: 肌激动器, 功能矫治, 口外弓, 骨性II类错颌畸形

Abstract: Objective To compare the treatment effectiveness of two kinds of Vanbeek activators with different load-points of extraoral force in the treatment of children’s skeletal class Ⅱ malocclusion. Methods Thirty cases were included from January 2019 to December 2020. In the experimental group, improved Vanbeek activators with facebows extending between central and lateral incisors were used. In the control group, conventional Vanbeek activators with facebows extending between first and second premolars were used. Pretreatment and post-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of patients were collected for measurement. Results After treatment, the MP-FH (P=0.014), ANS-Me/Ar-Go ratio (P=0.042) and OP-FH (P=0.013) in the experimental group decreased significantly than the ones in the control group. between two groups in the change of SNA, SNB, ANB, Y axis angle, ANS-Me/N-Me ratio, U1-SN, and L1-MP, the difference is not statistically significant(P>0.05). Conclusion The load-point of improved Vanbeek activator was in front of the resistance centers of upper arch and maxilla, which led to counter clockwise rotation of jaws and was effective in vertical control in moderate to high angle children with skeletal class Ⅱ malocclusion.

Key words: Orthopedic treatment, Facebow, Skeletal class II malocclusion

中图分类号:

R783.5

柯云艳, 张立港, 应丽珍, 陈学鹏. 肌激动器联合不同口外弓施力点治疗儿童骨性II类错颌畸形的疗效研究[J]. 中华养生保健, 2024, 42(13): 5-8.

KE Yun-yan, ZHANG Li-gang, YING Li-zhen, CHEN Xue-peng. Comparison of the Treatment Effectiveness between Two Vanbeek Activators with Different Load-Points of Extraoral Force in the Treatment of Children’s Skeletal Class Ⅱ Malocclusion[J]. ZHONGHUA YANGSHENG BAOJIAN, 2024, 42(13): 5-8.

参考文献

[1] 胡义春,李婷,贾俊,等.功能矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类Ⅰ分类错下颌骨改变的研究进展[J].中华口腔正畸学杂志,2019(4):224-227.
[2] TOMBLYN T, ROGERS M, ANDREWS L, et al.Cephalometric study of class ii division 1 patients treated with an extended-duration, reinforced, banded herbst appliance followed by fixed appliances[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop,2016,150(5):818-830.
[3] 金作林. 颅面部生长发育与早期生长改良[J].国际口腔医学杂志,2021,48(1):7-11.
[4] 黄朝阳,肖俐娟,赵玲.改良肌激动器矫治生长发育期安氏Ⅱ类1分类畸形21例临床分析[J].广西医科大学学报,2021,38(7):1448-1452.
[5] CIRGIC E, KJELLBERG H, HANSEN K.Treatment of large overjet in angle class ii: Division 1 malocclusion with andresen activators versus prefabricated functional appliances-a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial[J]. Eur J Orthod,2016,38(5):516-524.
[6] 金婕,陈钰文,朱玉,等.FR II型功能矫治器与肌激动器对儿童安氏II1类错矫治效果对比研究[J].中国实用口腔科杂志,2015,8(11):668-671.
[7] D’ANTO V, BUCCI R, FRANCHI L, et al. Class ii functional orthopaedic treatment: A systematic review of systematic reviews[J]. J Oral Rehabil,2015,42(8):624-642.
[8] PACHA M M, FLEMING P S, JOHAL A.A comparison of the efficacy of fixed versus removable functional appliances in children with class ii malocclusion: A systematic review[J]. Eur J Orthod,2016,38(6):621-630.
[9] SANTAMARIA-VILLEGAS A, MANRIQUE-HERMANDEZ R, ALVAREZ-VARELA E, et al.Effect of removable functional appliances on mandibular length in patients with class ii with retrognathism: Systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. BMC oral health,2017,17(1):52.
[10] EHSANI S, NEBBE B, NORMANDO D, et al.Short-term treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Orthod,2015,37(2):170-176.
[11] GAO W, LI X, BAI Y.An assessment of late fixed functional treatment and the stability of forsus appliance effects[J]. Aust Orthod J,2014,30(1):2-10.
[12] 魏竹亮,周力,易炜,等.头帽肌激动器和普通功能矫治器矫治安氏II类1分类错上下牙列变化的初步探讨[J].现代口腔医学杂志,2010,24(2):99-102.
[13] INCE-BINGOL S, KAYA B, BAYRAN B, et al.Treatment efficiency of activator and skeletal anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device appliances[J]. Clin Oral Investig,2021,25(3):1505-1512.
[14] 赵志河,赵美英.上颌复合体及上颌牙弓阻力中心位置的研究[J].中华口腔正畸学杂志,1994,(1):25-26.
[15] 徐宝华. 现代临床口腔正畸学[M].第8版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2013:345-346.
[16] GAUTAM P, VALIATHAN A, ADHIKARI R.Craniofacial displacement in response to varying headgear forces evaluated biomechanically with finite element analysis[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop,2009,135(4):507.
[17] BURKE M, JACOBSON A.Vertical changes in high-angle class ii, division 1 patients treated with cervical or occipital pull headgear[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop,1992,102(6):501.
[18] HARALABAKIS N B, SIFAKAKIS I B.The effect of cervical headgear on patients with high or low mandibular plane angles and the “myth” of posterior mandibular rotation[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop,2004, 126(3):310-317.
[19] 苏杰华,刘佳莉,许潾于,等.J钩高位牵引压低并内收上颌前牙的三维有限元分析[J].中华口腔医学杂志,2015,50(2):84-88.