Abstract:

 Objective    To compare the clinical curative effect of different casting fixed function appliances for skeletal Class Ⅱ malocclusion. Methods    Totally 36 patients with skeletal Class Ⅱ malocclusion who visited our hospital from May 2013 to October 2015 were induded as the research objects； under the patients' informed consent and by random number table method they were divided into control group and experimental group （18 cases in each group）；control group took casting herbst functional appliance as orthodontic treatment；experimental group took casting fixed Twin-block function appliances；compare  clinical curative effect and chairside time between the two groups. Results          There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups concerning the value of head shadow （P > 0.05）. There was statistical difference on chairside time between the two groups （P < 0.05）. Conclusion    Treatment effects of two different functional appliances（Twin-block and Herbst）are similar in the early treatment of skeletal Class Ⅱ malocclusion； Compared with Herbst， TB is more convenient to both orthodontic doctors and patients.

Key words:  , casting fixed function appliances； skeletal Class Ⅱ malocclusion； head shadow； chairside time

摘要：

目的    比较不同铸造固定式功能矫治器矫正青少年骨性Ⅱ类错牙合的临床疗效。方法    选取2014年5月至2015年10月湖北省中西医结合医院口腔科收治的青少年骨性Ⅱ类错牙合患者36例，在征得患者及家属知情同意情况下随机将其分为研究组及对照组各18例。研究组采取铸造固定双牙合垫功能矫治器矫正治疗，对照组采取铸造Herbst功能矫治器矫正治疗。在正畸治疗前和功能矫治完成后对每位患者拍摄X线头颅侧位片，对其治疗前后的头影测量值变化情况进行比较。同时，比较两组患者椅旁操作时间的差异。结果    两组患者治疗前后的头影测量值变化情况比较，差异均无统计学意义（均P＞0.05）；总椅旁操作时间比较，研究组与对照组差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论    铸造固定双牙合垫功能矫治器矫正治疗骨性Ⅱ类错牙合效果与铸造Herbst功能矫治器相当，但临床操作上前者明显比后者更简便。

关键词: 铸造固定式功能矫治器, 骨性Ⅱ类错牙合, 头影测量, 椅旁时间