中国实用口腔科杂志

中国实用口腔科杂志

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

利用ABO-OGS指数评价个性化舌侧与传统唇侧系统疗效研究

周林曦1，张桂荣2，姚政铎1，沈    刚1   

  1. 1.上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院正畸科，上海  200011；2.沈阳市口腔医院，沈阳  110002
  • 出版日期:2016-02-15 发布日期:2016-03-09

  • Online:2016-02-15 Published:2016-03-09

摘要：

目的    通过ABO-OGS指数对个性化舌侧矫治系统以及传统的唇侧直丝弓矫治系统的治疗结果进行对比研究。方法    选取2012—2015年上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院正畸科20例接受正畸治疗的错畸形患者，个性化舌侧系统与传统唇侧系统矫治各10例，分别测量正畸治疗后模型的美国正畸协会客观评分系统（ABO-OGS）指数，计算各项所占比重，使用独立t检验比较评估两种矫治系统的差异。结果    个性化舌侧病例平均总计分为25.3分，传统唇侧直丝弓病例平均总计分为24.5分，两者相差0.8。个性化舌侧矫治系统在唇舌向倾斜度方面以及牙根倾斜度方面得分高于唇侧，分别相差1.3及0.5，但差异均无统计学意义（均P＞0.05）。结论        个性化舌侧矫治系统与传统唇侧直丝弓矫治系统各个项目的评分及总分方面差异无统计学意义，均能达到令人满意的治疗效果。

关键词: ABO-OGS指数, 个性化舌侧矫治系统, 唇侧直丝弓矫治系统

Abstract:

Objective    To compare the orthodontic treatment outcomes of fully-customized lingual appliance and labial straight wire appliance using American Board of Orthodontics-Objective Grading System（ABO-OGS）. Methods    Twenty patients selected from Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital were divided into two groups of 10 patients each，who were managed with fully-customized lingual appliance and labial straight wire appliance，respectively. The treatment outcomes were measured with American Board of Orthodontics-Objective Grading System（ABO-OGS）. Independent T test was used to compare these two systems. Results    The results showed that the customized lingual appliances average score was 25.3，and the conventional labial straight wire appliances average score was 24.5. The difference was 0.8 points，showing that the outcome of the labial appliance was better than that of the lingual appliances，but there was no statistical significance. Conclusion    There is no statistical significance between the treatment outcomes of lingual and labial systems. Both of these two systems are able to achieve satisfactory outcomes.

Key words: American Board of Orthodontics-Objective Grading System, ABO-OGS；customized lingual appliance；straight wire appliance